Where is all this GCRTF heavyhandedness?

Some of the brethren are complaining about the Great Commission Task Force and the recommendations that came out of it. It is said that the GCRTF recommendations (those would be the ones that were overwhelmingly passed back in June by the assembled SBC) is divisive, that it was a top-down deal, that it was somewhat coercive on the state conventions. I don't see that, save for the fact that when money is on the agenda it is inevitably divisive. Those who have want to keep. Those who see greater priorities for our money want to reallocate.

Amazingly, some have even complained about pastors, churches, and messengers who were detached from active state convention life getting involved in the process, showing up at the conventions and, gasp!, voting. There would have been no GCR, much less a GCRTF, if this wasn't done 30 years ago.

While the GCRTF recommendations did frame the question about the proportion of resources to be kept in heavily churched, Deep South state conventions, one has to admit that no state has been coerced. They met. They voted. That's the way we do stuff.

So, what's the problem?

A number of state conventions have indeed voted to move towards a 50/50 Cooperative Program split and some who haven't committed to those numbers have increased the SBC portion. Good moves, IMO, but not moves that anyone has dictated to the conventions. It is well documented that nobody tells an autonomous Southern Baptist church, association, state convention or the national convention to do anything...sometimes not even Jesus.

I have my doubts that the states will ever achieved the 50/50 split that some have committed to do. State conventions that don't want to give more to the SBC, IMB, and NAMB can certainly vote to keep their money.

But I don't see how anyone can complain about the process.

_______________________
Baptist Press has an entire story collection on the state convention meetings.

Bring ye the whole tithe into the Cooperative Program storehouse!

What gives anyone in Southern Baptist life the right to presume that a tithe of the offerings to any SBC local church belongs to the Cooperative Program?

Nothing that is in the Bible; nothing that is in denominational and state constitutions and by-laws, and nothing that has been agreed upon by any assembled Baptist body.

So why do otherwise very intelligent and decent people among us write, speak, and act as if denominational entities are entitled to that ten percent?

The latest such entitlement presumption comes in the Baptist Press story collection “2010: GCR Task Force Report Viewpoints” and is written by David Williams , editor of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist, newsjournal of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention.

The usual route for expressing this presumption is to make an equivalence of a member’s tithe to his or her church with a church’s “tithe” of the Cooperative Program. Williams wrote:

As a pastor, when a tithing family gives a designated gift over and above their tithe for a special need in our church, I rejoice and thank God for their generosity. When a non-tithing family gives a designated gift because they would rather decide how their money is spent than submit it to the decision-making process of our church, I grieve over their lack of cooperation.

Sigh...there you go again.

When and where is it written that anyone, any group, any entity has the right to feel entitled to ten percent of a church’s offering plate dollars? When did we move in Southern Baptist life from commending the Cooperative Program to the churches for their consideration in the interest of supporting state conventions, seminaries, and our mission organizations, to demanding that they give a certain proportion of their offerings or else be branded as non-cooperative?

The Baptist Press GCRTF story collection includes 15 articles written by 11 different people. Nine of the eleven people are on the Baptist payroll at some level. While this doesn’t mean their opinions are not legitimate, it is appropriate to take note of that fact. Not surprisingly, nine of the eleven are critical of the GCRTF.

We have four presidential candidates this year - three major candidates. All four have outstanding records of denominational support. The three major candidates have all cut Cooperative Program giving in their churches. Only one (Ted Traylor) gives the golden 10% and he supports the GCRTF report with its "Great Commission Giving" recommendation. The candidate who is most critical of the report (Jimmy Jackson) gives below the SBC average to the CP, well below 10%, and his church even budgets direct gifts to the mission boards. In the terminology of the CP tithe entitlement crowd this is called designating your giving "around" the CP, as if that is something to be shamed about.

Southern Baptist churches, the places where ordinary Baptists make their funding decisions every Sunday, have consistently, persistently, insistently lowered their Cooperative Program percentages for decades and it stands at about 6% depending on how it is calculated and hasn't seen 10% since who knows when, maybe never.

Maybe we should stick with the idea that the tithe belongs to the Lord and not to the Cooperative Program.

How about a little pre-convention demagoguery?

It’s June. The SBC annual meeting is only days away. So, how about a little pre-convention demagoguery?

The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has done their thing. While I wasn’t thrilled with the composition of the Task Force (two thirds megachurch people) or their decision to have secret meetings (excluding even a Baptist Press rep on background) and while I’m not overwhelmed by the group’s recommendations, I think they have done pretty good, particularly in receiving feedback since February and adjusting their stuff.

I’d vote for the report were I to be present. Others will vote against it for one reason or another. Fine. That’s what Baptists do.

But why demagogue the thing?

I ask, does the GCRTF "attempt to redirect church members tithes outside the Cooperative Program" and "try to get us to designate part of our tithe directly to SBC entites"?

Uh, no. It doesn't. It doesn't say that. It doesn't imply that. It doesn't come close to any of that.

So where does that come from? That wording comes from Les Puryear, resident small church demagogue who once went after the job of a prof because Les didn’t like his views on tithing (read it here).

This is cheap shot stuff.

Folks may not like the idea of employing a new label (Great Commission Giving) on things that tens of thousands of SBC churches already do. Some may even believe that it is not the best way to approach church stewardship and denominational support. Some may fear that this will intensify the decades old trend of churches giving less proportionately to the CP. I don't have such concerns but am willing to listen to those who do and can express it in a legitimate manner.

Some will vote against the report. No problem but we can do without this kind of nonsense.

A micropastor looks at megapastor Bryant Wright

Those nasty, insular, greedy, predatory megachurches.

Really?

Read what one pastor says about the perception and reality of megachurches:

Point of View: My megachurch neighbors

On the most mega of the three megapastors, Bryant Wright, (Jimmy Jackson and Ted Traylor are the other two) the micropastor says this:

Bryant Wright is a man who may not remember me, but I remember him. The reason why is several years ago I was at a conference at Ridgecrest and Dr. Wright was the guest speaker that week. How did this megachurch pastor treat the rest of us? He stayed after every service to speak to people, fellowshipped with various groups during meals, and on two occasions Dr. Wright spent almost a half an hour talking to me about the ministry that I had just started. He prayed for me and greeted me every day. This man took a interest in me, a twenty something kid who could do nothing for him and that has left a lasting impression.

I'm not a big megachurch fan and think there has to be some balance in SBC life. It was a mistake for Johnny Hunt to set up the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force where fully two-thirds of them either pastor or worship at megachurches. However, it is also a mistake to stereotype megachurches and pastors.

One of my online friends declares that he will never vote for a SBC presidential candidate whose church runs more than 350 in worship. The other Resurgence, the one that really happened rather than the one we hope we can stir up with a committee and votes and all that, would never have happened if megachurch pastors didn't lead it. Sorry, my friend, you will be disappointed on June 15th because a megachurch pastor will be elected SBC president.

Money is tight for the micropastors and I don't plan to be in Orlando but if I were I'd vote for Bryant Wright. In an interview with The Christian Index, Wright actually said "We’ve made some mistakes along the way..."

When is the last time you heard a megachurch pastor admit mistakes?

Who's Afraid of Great Commission Giving?

Apparently, lots of folks.

Start with Morris Chapman, lame duck head of the SBC Executive Committee. Morris has a "white paper" that expresses his "grave concerns" about how the new category of giving, Great Commission Giving, will affect the Cooperative Program, to which he says the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has given "lip service."

Norman Jameson writes a nice Baptist Press piece about the predictable results of the CP ox being gored. In BP's collection of GCRTF stories are a number of others who decry the new giving designation.

I don't think the CP will be killed off by Great Commission giving. After all, we are about a generation or more into the CP slowly declining. Fact is, churches are making their decisions on this and have for years, and the CP has been receiving less of the offering plate dollars as a result.

Why?

Good question. Someone ought to ask and listen to the answers.

Jerry Rankin is a hero of mine

I've posted my thoughts about IMB head Jerry Rankin's blogs elsewhere but I'd say again that I believe him to be one of the SBC's outstanding figures of the last 25 years. I certainly believe he has the right perspective on SBC funding matters, the Cooperative Program, lostness and priorities.

Rankin's blog

Concerning the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, he says today:

The recommendations contain very little that will make a difference in the SBC being able to send and support more missionaries and engage the many unreached people groups around the world with the gospel. The recommended shift of 1 percent in CP allocations is a nod in that direction, but speaks as much to the Executive Committee eliminating ministry assignments and return to a basic administrative role on behalf of the Convention.