Assault on the good old Cooperative Program about to be launched?

Hear anything much about the SBC name change recommendation lately?

Nope. Not too much.

Apparently, SBCers are pretty much squawked out on that. We will vote next month on the informal, non-mandatory, optional, if-you-wanna-but-we're-not-forcing-you-to-use-it descriptor. It will pass easily with moderate opposition...and then we will eat beignets and forget it.

The SBC issue-of-the-year is the "tension" between our North American Mission Board and the state conventions. That would be some state conventions, mainly those for whom NAMB has cut their entitlements (Jerry Rankin's choice of words).

Baptist Press has a story that explains things a bit. I have a few articles on it.

Hmmm, seems I hear some rumblings about states offering churches a way to designate around NAMB and keep their Cooperative Program money close to home. Perhaps it is just chest thumping and venting rather than a serious discussion. I hope so; however, the CP is already our most seriously declining metric and we absolutely shouldn't be kicking it farther down which is what anything like this would do.

It would be ironic indeed for state conventions to lead the way in undermining the Cooperative Program just to keep some of their personnel on the payroll.

Nah...they wouldn't do that, would they?

It's one thing for individual churches to designate. It's another thing for states assist and encourage churches to do so. In the past the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was powerful enough in some states to do this. I don't think the results have been helpful. We don't need to try that again, and that among our conservative selves.

I would think that a responsible state convention executive would be the first to say, "No fellows. We are not going this route. We've promoted the Cooperative Program all these decades. It is a great cooperative giving plan and we're not going to dismantle it because we have current issues with one SBC entity. We will work it out another way."

One association here in Georgia passed a resolution that suggested that churches take a chunk (25-35 percent) out of their Cooperative Program giving and give it instead to "state missions." This is probably just frustration and venting but I'd hope that our state CEO would respond quickly if the resolution is directed to him. (I will probably take that resolution up in a blog in a few days. It is interesting.) 

"Great Commission Giving" is the culprit, some say? Not really, though I haven't seen data on how churches are reporting in this new giving category yet.

GCG might have been like throwing a teaspoon full of kerosene on a fire. States promoting CP designations would be like tossing a tanker load of jet fuel on it. We might all get burned up in that.

NAMB funding to state conventions: "Entitlements"?

I don’t know of any Southern Baptist who can speak about missions with more credibility than Jerry Rankin, immediate past president of the International Mission Board. 

Rankin wrote a blog article on the North American Mission Board yesterday:

NAMB Deserves Our Support

Here’s a portion of it:

For years [NAMB] has been a conduit of funding for state conventions; partnership agreements channeling their work through these and other entities have left little margin for initiative and resources to take the gospel to underserved and neglected areas. Meanwhile baptisms have continued to decline and church growth has stagnated outside the Bible belt…

…It is understandable that there would be denominational leaders disagreeing with changes in strategy and priority; after all it means reductions in subsidies and elimination of effective programs and staff fulfilling significant roles.  

Collectively and cooperatively we can have the resources and resolve to make a difference, but not if the priority is to continue traditions and maintain the status quo. Why should NAMB’s strategy and resources be funneled to state programs in the Bible Belt that already receive the bulk of Cooperative Program funding and are where there is the  greatest concentration of established churches in the world.

Certainly there are still vast swatches of lostness, needs for ministry and areas new churches need to be planted everywhere, but should not churches in those states take more responsibility for the mission where they are located and free NAMB to represent us in areas that have a dearth of churches and  minuscule resources? No one likes to give up entitlements, but if we truly have a heart for reaching the lost everyone should be willing to make sacrifices in their own programs to get it done.

One notices that he used the term “entitlements” in a context that questions NAMB’s legacy practice of “funnel[ing]…state programs in the Bible Belt”.

“Entitlements” you say, Jerry? That’s a pretty strong term, and not particularly positive either.

Those who are paying attention, an admittedly small slice of Southern Baptists, are aware that a number of state convention leaders are doing some fairly serious complaining, something SBCers consider a God-given right, about changes at NAMB that affect their budgets. These executives, one presumes, are complaining even more loudly in private than they are in public.

The complaints stem from changes in funding formulas and policies. NAMB’s critics may speak of such things in terms of how the organization has dictated changes, how they have been heavy handed, or how historic cooperative relationships have been discarded. 

None of this language for Jerry Rankin. Read the whole piece. 

It is infused with frank terminology like “subsidies,” “continue[ing] traditions,” “self-interest,” “provincialism,” "status quo," and, yes, “entitlements.”

Ouch...but I cannot say that each of those terms are accurate.

So, the IMB finally gets a leader - Tom Elliff

Tom Elliff, nominated to be the next president of the International Mission Board, is a former megachurch pastor, president of the SBC, missionary, and IMB VP. I have no reason to think he will not do well.

Why the trustees took so long to settle on him is puzzling, but then these are people who like to do things behind closed doors. Perhaps there are compelling reasons. The IMB and other SBC entities would not be hurt by a revival of openness and transparency.

One cannot fail to note that he would be the first IMB president without extensive and long term experience on the mission field. I didn’t look back beyond the time of B. J. Cauthen, IMB President from 1954-1979, but in the past half century no president was picked who did not have a career on the field. Cauthen was in China and before the Communists. His successor, Keith Parks, was in Indonesia for years before succeeding Cauthen in 1980. Jerry Rankin was likewise in Indonesia for years before taking the helm of the IMB in 1992. Seems to me that not having the degree of saturation in overseas missions that previous IMB heads have had is a minus for Elliff, even though he was in Zimbabwe for half a term. I suppose this will be a question asked of him.

We all have to endure comparisons with our predecessors and I admit to having a great affection for Jerry Rankin. When Rankin spoke it wasn’t the kind of bluff and bombast that many SBCers seem to love. Rather, he was always impressively grave and serious in his commitment to reaching the world for Jesus. I found his appeal to young people to give their lives to overseas mission service to be very powerful and unwavering.

If a year ago you got a glimpse of last week's headline, "Former Megachurch Pastor, SBC President Nominated As IMB Head", you wouldn't have been a bit surprised. "Nothing new under the SBC sun," you would say. The only wrinkles are that he is 66 and that the trustees took so long about it.

But whatdoIknow? I'm just a plodding SBC pastor who sacrifices every year so that we can make our Lottie Moon goal.

If Elliff is approved by trustees, a lead pipe cinch, he certainly have my prayers and support.

IMB, finally and Plodder's career change plans derailed

In a hurry this Friday:

The IMB finally has a candidate to replace Jerry Rankin - Tom Elliff, One wonders what took them so long to settle on an in-house, well-connected, former megapastor with some mission experience. Perhaps his age, 66.

Seems that elephants are behind a recent outbreak of tuberculosis. Plodder may have to reconsider his career plans to move from his mildly successful run as a cat herder to being an elephant handler if there is a risk of TB.

Speaking of elephants and TB, Plodder recommends that all SBC entity trustees immediately get checked for the disease. Most of them spend a lot of time in rooms where there are elephants, though they mostly ignore the pachyderms.

Had a couple of pretty fair fishing afternoons this past week and was reminded of Adrian Roger's axiom that "it is a sin to be soul winning when you ought to be fishing." Look it up. It's in the record.

Have a nice weekend.

IMB Search Committee: Take your time but get it right.

What’s up with the International Mission Board trustees and their search committee for the new leader?

Not much that I can see. Periodically, the committee tells we SBC commoners that they’re still looking but when they get the job done they will “have full confidence that we’re presenting God’s man.” The search committee chairman said that back in September.

I grant that the committee is genuinely interested in finding and doing the will of God in this matter; however, the ‘God’s Man’ talk is sorely overused and virtually meaningless. Would any search committee present a candidate for any position and say that he is not ‘God’s man’? Uh, no.

Nonetheless, this is one job, one position that we need to get right. God forbid that we have to go through a couple of ‘God’s men’ like the last two NAMB CEOs.

Plodder eschews inside information and cannot add any insight to what is going on. Actually, I am so much an outsider that I haven’t the foggiest idea what the problem is but most of us could guess. Perhaps the committee is divided. Perhaps they are courting a consensus candidate who can’t make up his mind. I don’t know.

I will say that the IMB absolutely must not end up with a leader who is lacking in a couple of key areas:

• He must have a record of stellar support of the work of the IMB, the Cooperative Program, and the Lottie Moon offering. Whatever NAMb has done, is doing here, I don’t think you can make even a weak case for an IMB leader who has not been a strong believer in the work of the IMB. But should the search committee be mezmerized, and no group is more susceptible to such than a Southern Baptist search committee, by one who has no record of support but whom they think is irresistible because of perceived gifts and abilities, we will be in for some acrimony.

• He much have solid missiological knowledge and overseas experience. I cannot imagine the leader of over 5,000 missions personnel not having some life experience overseas with another language and culture.

There are plenty of people who meet these two requirements.

Gerald Harris, editor of our pretty good state paper, The Christian Index, editorializes about the search and makes some good points. Harris points out that since Jerry Rankin announced his retirement the trustees have had a solid SIXTEEN months on this task.

This search committee has been working longer than any I can recall in national Southern Baptist life. I hope the length of time is rewarded by the right person being chosen. We absolutely cannot afford to go through turmoil on this one.