So what does Platt/IMB say about our Cooperative Program?

David Platt is our newly elected leader of  our most important entity, The International Mission Board.

What does his election say about our main channel of cooperative giving, The Cooperative Program?

Here's what a few prominent Southern Baptists say:

"Missions going and giving is bigger and more expansive than the Cooperative Program."
     - Herschel York, IMB trustee, David Platt is President of the IMB (and that's a good thing).

"As the president of an entity funded through the C[ooperative] P[rogram] almost entirely, I would be insane to celebrate the election of someone I thought wasn't committed to CP."
     - Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC, Why I'm Glad David Platt is the New IMB President.

"If Cooperative Program support was not considered important in this season of Southern Baptist decision-making, let us make certain it will be in the seasons to come."
     - Bart Barber; pastor, former SBC vice president, and trustee of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, David Platt is MY new IMB President.

"For that ever-increasing group that feels uncomfortable with traditional CP giving, the election of David Platt  will more likely lead to renewed interest in - rather than discouragement from - traditional cooperative giving." J. D. Greear, What David Platt's IMB Presidency Signals About Our Future.

"When I think about what happens in the Cooperative Program, what happens in the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, I see different churches from all over North America give, and the result is that missionaries are able to go...It's not cooperation for the sake of cooperation; the goal is seeing more people reached with the Gospel." David Platt, Platt Looks Ahead to Mission Challenges.

Here's what I say:

• Don't be looking for a general increase in Cooperative Program giving by churches. What may be hoped for is that churches that have followed Platt's general approach to mission giving, give a small amount through the CP but concentrate major giving directly to IMB and Executive Committee, will be affirmed in their methodology.
• Look for the first state convention executive to tiptoe up to a breath of mild criticism of Platt and his lack of commitment to the Cooperative Program. If Platt's church found anything in the Alabama Baptist State Convention that garnered their monetary support (other than a small amount to the children's home) it wasn't reported. If anything is evidenced by his church's mission giving pattern it is that the state convention was unimportant. Since state convention budgets are shrinking due to declining CP giving by their churches, and there is pressure on them to keep less of that CP dollar and send more to the SBC Executive Committee, no group of SBC leaders should be more concerned than the state executives.
• Try and grasp this: Platt's church is projected in 2014 to give $1,018,000 in giving dedicated specifically to the IMB ($300,000 to Lottie Moon and $718,000 directly in "special designated gifts"). To be added to that are gifts that are through the regular CP channel and direct to Executive Committee portions of which go to IMB. Not many SBC churches give these amounts to IMB. To those concerned about percentages, not dollars, not many churches give this proportion of their revenues, I estimated about 12%, to Southern Baptist international missions. 
• The alternative channel of cooperative Southern Baptist but not Cooperative Program giving, writing checks to the SBC Executive Committee instead of one's state convention will likely be boosted by Platt's election. 
• Partnership of churches directly with the IMB, Platt's church predominant method of international missions giving ($718,000 of the $1,114,000 given to the board), will be enhanced by his leadership of the IMB. It is unthinkable that the method Platt found best for his church he will jettison as leader of the IMB. 
•  State conventions success in selling the CP has come by their promoting international and to a lesser extent North American missions. In addition to emphasizing the Lottie Moon offerings Platt's church utilized the two additional methods noted above (direct gifts to the EC and "special designated gifts" to IMB). The more the CP is decoupled from international missions the less attractive it becomes to Southern Baptist churches and individuals.
• The warning against returning to "societal giving" has become louder, but emptier. Trustees of the IMB apparently have few concerns about it.
• We are more concerned about encouraging a new generation of Baptists to be involved in, to give to, and to support Southern Baptist cooperative mission efforts than to give to and support the Cooperative Program.

What the election of David Platt says about our Cooperative Program is this:

We like it. We support it. We have no alternative for general support of the market basket of Southern Baptist missions and ministries. But we recognize that it is unlikely to fit the mission needs of the 21st century.  

The Executive Committee's New and Improved SBC Constitution

When Baptist Press reported last Wednesday about our Executive Committee's meeting and a part of that which was covered under the rubric of "Updated qualifications weighed for messengers" I was curious. I'm a bit of a numbers junkie and stuff about the dollars per messenger or percent per messenger and how that might be received interests me.

Outstanding Texas pastor, and current SBC First Vice President Bart Barber soon informed me and others through his comments under my blog article at SBC Voices and then later in his own article there, that the Committee's proposal included far more than just inflationary adjustments to the dollar amount. The proposal includes a linking of the Baptist Faith and Message to the definition of being "in friendly cooperation" with the Convention. Barber wrote:

It defines friendly cooperation with the convention to exclude from friendly cooperation those churches who deliberately and publicly demonstrate their opposition to the convention's statement of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message

Barber, who was in XComm meetings on the subject, is going from memory, since the proposed change hasn't been published.

The way this has unfolded reminds me of the old joke about the man whose wife sent him to Walmart for a loaf of bread. He came back with a new lawn tractor, flat screen TV, rod and reel, and a new vacuum cleaner...and the loaf of bread. When asked by his wife, he could only answer sheepishly, "Well, I was in the neighborhood and these looked like some things we could use."

The Executive Committee delivered the loaf of bread, and a proposal for the most significant change in our constitution that I can recall. Our SBC Constitution doesn't mention a statement of faith or link it to membership and award of messenger credentials.

Being a hacker and plodder in the SBC hinterlands, I ask my more erudite colleagues if this is deliberate and why so? I am the least networked person in the SBC, defiantly so. Surely there is a prof, SBC junkie, or insider who can rehearse the history on this with explanations of the causes and potential dangers if this is changed.

So far, only the estimable Dr. Barber has attempted explanations and expansions. I appreciate his effort. His writing and comments indicate that including the BFM in the definition of "friendy cooperation" would:

1. Solve the problem of fence sitting Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches who have relationships with both the SBC and the CBF. Presumably, these churches have not adopted the BFM, not unlike the vast majority of SBC churches.

2. Put a majority of SBC churches' SBC membership in jeopardy as a result of their practice of "open communion." LifeWay Research found that a majority of SBC churches practice this, in violation of the BFM.

3. Fix the problem of continually adding specifics to the membership article, as we did to have grounds to exclude churches that "act to affirm approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." No need to add a proviso to spell out a laundry list of churches that whose actions are so offensive as to deserve exclusion. The constitution will be brief and tidy.

4. Simplify the problem of non-SBC churches who want to give a few dollars to get cheaper seminary tuition.

5. Name the Cooperative Program in the Constitution (though gifts through it are still not required, I think).

6. Make a provision for membership by both updated dollars and percentages (the loaf of bread).

The only other reaction from SBC officials were rather desultory, decidedly non-positive, remarks in the BP article. One was from Frank Page ("...if the perception is that this would hurt small churches, this is DOA") and the XComm chairman Ernest Easley ( the proposed change "is not a hill on which to die"). Neither mentioned the BFM.

It's time for some questions:

1. Do we really think it necessary in 2014 to inform thousands of SBC churches that their communion practices are liable to cause them to be dismissed from the SBC? It is not allowed to say, "Nah, we will never wield this sword. It's just nice to have."

2. Is the CBF still such a problem that we think it necessary to find a clean, neat way to get rid of them altogether?

3. Do we want to invite scrutiny on this basis of all SBC churches that are happily supporting our work, missionaries, and entities which churches may not be adhering to the BFM in all of its entirety and subject to the varying interpretations of this SBC sub-group or another? While the BFM is a good guide for our employees, entities, and personnel, would it be better used as a club against churches that might tweak this or that part of it.

4. Aren't we happy to have considerable numbers of dually affiliated African-American churches who might differ in some small degrees from the BFM?

5. Will we have a call to further tighten the BFM or distill it for the essence of what being in friendly cooperation really is.

6. Do we want yet another Cooperative Program reduction plan and isn't Frank Page hopeful, finally, for a slight "uptick" in it?

Of several quirks about we Southern Baptists, one is that we all have two eyes, a nose, innumerable opinions, and pockets full of agendas. Whose agenda is best served by these changes?

Maybe we should take the lawn tractor, TV, rod and reel, and vacuum cleaner back and keep the loaf of bread. Best I can see the new system for dollars and percentages looks OK.

Aside from the oppressive Houston humility, er humidity, the SBC should be a good one

While I doubt anyone would confuse the humidity at an SBC meeting in Houston with humility, the former obvious from one's first morning breath, the latter always in short supply amongst our struttin', backslappin', gregarious brethren, I am optimistic that the annual meeting will be good.

Here are a few things I read in the tea leaves from afar, no benefactor having offered to pay my expenses to attend the meeting (second consecutive year this has happened).

Elections

• Fred Luter will be reelected as president and will deliver a stem-winding, corn-shucking, rip-roaring sermon.
• Bart Barber will be elected 1st VP. He is a sensible, reasonable, quality pastor.
• Jared Moore, whom I know from SBC Voices, will not be elected 2nd VP but will continue to grow in knowledge and grace as he ages and works toward an advanced degree. He is a serious minded young man. Try again.

 The Calvinist Report

• It will pass easily but there is really nothing controversial in it and it requires no action.
• Various SBC luminaries will offer comments filled with sweetness and light.
• An outlier messenger or two may get to a mic and ask a dumb question, but that's the SBC.

 Peter Lumpkins' resolution on Sex Abuse (look for my article later today on the subject)

• Will be buried in the resolution committee and not reported out to the floor with the reason offered that the SBC has addressed the issue in previous resolutions.
• An attempt to put it on the floor for a vote will fail.
• The SBC will have missed a good opportunity to get ahead of a scandal that will embarrass some of our prominent leaders.

 The statistical report

• There will be hand-wringing, weeping, and gnashing of teeth over the sharply lower baptism total for 2012. 
• God will be blamed for this in that He hasn't sent revival.
• Pastors will be blamed for this for not witnessing.
• Jerry Drace, president of the SBC Evangelists group, will blame pastors for not using vocational evangelists.
• No one but Kevin Ezell will be able to say they are doing something that might change the downward trend.

 Boy Scouts

• Boy Scouts will be beaten up.
• The near defunct and moribund SBC Boy Scout alternative, Royal Ambassadors, will be touted. 

People-watching

• Look for the mega pastors and mega wannabees to be wearing suits or at least dress shirts with cufflinks. See how they strut (you could strut like that with some practice, get a full length mirror).
• Observe carefully how many of the Reverends are embarrassingly rotund. Follow one to lunch and find out why.
• Be sure and not miss the miscellaneous business sessions because that is where you will be entertained by a few oddball messengers offering oddball motions. Hey, it's their right.
• Lament the lack of tonsorial enhancement, toupees. Thirty years ago there were no shaved heads and hundreds of toupees. Now, scarcely a toupee to be spotted and shiny pates everywhere. 

I regret not being able to attend but, Lord willing, I will make Baltimore next year.

Have fun, after all, you are on an expense account.