I read an article today on FoxNews website (http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/23/brad-pitt-doesnt-believe-in-god-or-telling-sex-secrets/?test=faces) where Brad Pitt stated that he is 20% atheist and 80% agnostic. Well, that's exactly how I feel about him.
I have seen him in a number of movies - if that was really him and not some Hollywood creation - so I am about 20% certain he exists! Since I have never personally met him or even seen him in person, I cannot really be certain that he exists. Really now, he could just be a figment of an over-active imagination on the part of millions of movie-goers. Like silly little children, millions of viewers have foolishly believed that Brad Pitt is a real Hollywood actor. And this is because of a scheme by Hollywood to purposely and maliciously deceive honest, hardworking individuals so that they will spend their time and money watching a (seriously) non-existent person!
I know this all sounds like nonsense, but why would anyone really believe that Brad Pitt exists? Just because others have said they have met him? How do we not know that they are not a part of the great scheme to fool us?
For those who think I am being ridiculous, I submit that I am being far less ridiculous than those who claim to not believe in God! There is more evidence that God exists than there is that Brad Pitt exists. REALLY!!!
Just Thinking :)
Joe
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
A Great Commission Resurgence? (Part 4)
Anyone who has been following life in the SBC has probably realized that a part of the controversy surrounding the GCR Task Force is the result of a natural resistance to change. Some of the leaders within our convention have resisted GCR while others have whole-heartily supported it. And there are others still who are watching to see how all of this "shakes out."
Anytime you have a bureaucracy, whether it is political or religious in nature, there is always a resistance to change. That is a part of our human experience. No one particularly likes change. Someone (maybe Adrian Rogers?) once said, "The only person who likes change is a baby with a messy diaper!"
I am a little suspicious about the motives of some within our convention, but I am willing to wait and see what the GCR Task Force comes up with. I think it is wrong on our part to state what they are up to when they have not even met yet. Let's give them a chance. I'm sure we will hear plenty from them before next year's convention. After all, we should not be afraid of evaluation, even if we are not always comfortable with those performing the evaluation.
Before I close let me address one issue that really disappoints me very much. That issue is the Clark Logan fiasco and the complete lack of anything being reported by Baptist Press. I have been a big fan of Baptist Press and usually read the news on their website every day it is posted (Mon-Fri). The failure even to report that Clark had resigned makes me wonder if BP actually stands for "Baptist Propaganda." Really, does anyone not think that this was a substantial news issue, especially in light of all the Twitter and Facebook activity over the past week? I plan to email BP and let them know of my disappointment with them. And I encourage you to do the same.
God Bless,
Joe
Anytime you have a bureaucracy, whether it is political or religious in nature, there is always a resistance to change. That is a part of our human experience. No one particularly likes change. Someone (maybe Adrian Rogers?) once said, "The only person who likes change is a baby with a messy diaper!"
I am a little suspicious about the motives of some within our convention, but I am willing to wait and see what the GCR Task Force comes up with. I think it is wrong on our part to state what they are up to when they have not even met yet. Let's give them a chance. I'm sure we will hear plenty from them before next year's convention. After all, we should not be afraid of evaluation, even if we are not always comfortable with those performing the evaluation.
Before I close let me address one issue that really disappoints me very much. That issue is the Clark Logan fiasco and the complete lack of anything being reported by Baptist Press. I have been a big fan of Baptist Press and usually read the news on their website every day it is posted (Mon-Fri). The failure even to report that Clark had resigned makes me wonder if BP actually stands for "Baptist Propaganda." Really, does anyone not think that this was a substantial news issue, especially in light of all the Twitter and Facebook activity over the past week? I plan to email BP and let them know of my disappointment with them. And I encourage you to do the same.
God Bless,
Joe
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
A Great Commission Resurgence? (Part 3)
Recent events within the SBC are certainly making things interesting. Especially compelling to me is the issue of Clark Logan, formerly Vice President for Business and Finance for the Executive Committee of the SBC. Clark's abrupt resignation caught a lot of people off-guard last week. When I first heard the news, my immediate thought was GCR and Dr. Chapman. Right or wrong, that was my first thought when I heard the news via a friend on Facebook last week.
Recent events have done nothing to change my first perception. And from the amount of chatter via Twitter and Facebook, I do not believe that I am alone in my assessment. I certainly hope that my assessment is wrong. The initial silence from Dr. Chapman, and then the reply to Clark's short clarification, speak volumes. One cannot help but wonder if Dr. Chapman is falling on his own sword after events of the past several months.
Before I share some of my perceptions, let me state a few things in Dr. Chapman's defense. First, I do not know what authority he has to fire or ask for the resignation of employees of the Convention. He may have the authority and he may have followed proper procedure. These kinds of issues happen not only in the business world, but they also happen in large churches across our convention. Leaders and those who work for them have disagreements that they cannot work through. That is not a surprise. Dr. Chapman may have been warranted in asking for Clark's resignation due to philosophical differences. I could understand that and would not really even have a problem with it. But...if that is the case, it has not been made clear.
I have known Clark for about 8 or 9 years. He and his wife Helen have always proven to be kind, humble people. I talked with Clark for a few minutes at the Convention. He has never, and I mean never, acted like a big-shot, at least not around me. My experiences with Clark and his family have always been pleasant and friendly. I was excited for Clark when he was hired to serve as a Vice President for the EC. That is what made the news of his resignation so shocking to so many people.
Because of the July 4 holiday period, news was slow in coming out about this event. Due to the lack of info, many people were left wondering if perhaps there had been some type of immorality or ethics issue. For anyone who knows Clark, that was not a consideration. That does not mean that he is not capable, because any of us are capable and more willing than we would care to admit. Yet, for those who know Clark, that was the last thing anyone would consider. As a matter of fact, I talked to an EC trustee (whom I will not name here because I talked with them as a friend and not as a source of info) who was under the impression that there could have been a moral lapse on Clark's part. It was not stated or inferred in a letter that was received from Dr. Chapman, but that was the only conclusion that they were able to draw as they did not know Clark. And then, Clark had to release a statement declaring that there was not a moral or ethical lapse on his part. And all Dr. Chapman would do is confirm that there was no immorality or ethics breach on Clark's behalf and retreat back into a "personnel matter" defense. And Baptist Press has yet to say one thing about this entire issue...and that really bothers me.
It is my opinion that Dr. Chapman has underestimated the response to this issue. I really believe that if Dr. Chapman would have issued a press release simply stating that "due to philosophical differences" he had asked for -and received- Clark's resignation, everything would have been a whole lot simpler. Instead, the silence and lack of clarity may very well prove damaging beyond repair for Dr. Chapman. And that makes me sad for him. Why? Because he has faithfully and dutifully served our Convention since 1992. He has literally "stood in the gap" for Southern Baptist causes and issues.
How is this issue linked to the GCR? Well, first of all, I do not know that it is. But it certainly seems that way to a lot of people. Why? Because as has already been noted, Dr. Chapman has made clear his opposition to the GCR document, particularly Article IX, and the formation of the GCR Task Force. How does that relate to Clark's resignation? Is it related to Clark's forced resignation? For those who do not know Clark, he once worked and served at Southern Seminary. Who is the President of Southern? Who made the motion to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint the GCR Task Force? That's right - Dr. R. Albert Mohler. I believe that the whole issue of the GCR has become very personal for Dr. Chapman and that Clark is the victim of his association and friendship with Dr. Mohler. I realize that may sound ludicrous or off-the-wall to some, but it is just my opinion. And I believe that opinion is shared by many who know Clark.
As I just mentioned, the GCR seems to be morphing into a personal tug-of-war between Dr. Chapman and those who support him with Dr. Hunt and those who support him. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly shaping up like that. And that is really unfortunate. The GCR should not become the next battleground for Southern Baptists, as it certainly seems to be doing. The GCR should be about seeking ways we can be more effective in our cooperation in fulfilling the Great Commission. That is why we voted to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint a GCR Task Force. However, I really believe there is more going on in all of this than any of us "regular" folks know.
In Christ,
Joe
Recent events have done nothing to change my first perception. And from the amount of chatter via Twitter and Facebook, I do not believe that I am alone in my assessment. I certainly hope that my assessment is wrong. The initial silence from Dr. Chapman, and then the reply to Clark's short clarification, speak volumes. One cannot help but wonder if Dr. Chapman is falling on his own sword after events of the past several months.
Before I share some of my perceptions, let me state a few things in Dr. Chapman's defense. First, I do not know what authority he has to fire or ask for the resignation of employees of the Convention. He may have the authority and he may have followed proper procedure. These kinds of issues happen not only in the business world, but they also happen in large churches across our convention. Leaders and those who work for them have disagreements that they cannot work through. That is not a surprise. Dr. Chapman may have been warranted in asking for Clark's resignation due to philosophical differences. I could understand that and would not really even have a problem with it. But...if that is the case, it has not been made clear.
I have known Clark for about 8 or 9 years. He and his wife Helen have always proven to be kind, humble people. I talked with Clark for a few minutes at the Convention. He has never, and I mean never, acted like a big-shot, at least not around me. My experiences with Clark and his family have always been pleasant and friendly. I was excited for Clark when he was hired to serve as a Vice President for the EC. That is what made the news of his resignation so shocking to so many people.
Because of the July 4 holiday period, news was slow in coming out about this event. Due to the lack of info, many people were left wondering if perhaps there had been some type of immorality or ethics issue. For anyone who knows Clark, that was not a consideration. That does not mean that he is not capable, because any of us are capable and more willing than we would care to admit. Yet, for those who know Clark, that was the last thing anyone would consider. As a matter of fact, I talked to an EC trustee (whom I will not name here because I talked with them as a friend and not as a source of info) who was under the impression that there could have been a moral lapse on Clark's part. It was not stated or inferred in a letter that was received from Dr. Chapman, but that was the only conclusion that they were able to draw as they did not know Clark. And then, Clark had to release a statement declaring that there was not a moral or ethical lapse on his part. And all Dr. Chapman would do is confirm that there was no immorality or ethics breach on Clark's behalf and retreat back into a "personnel matter" defense. And Baptist Press has yet to say one thing about this entire issue...and that really bothers me.
It is my opinion that Dr. Chapman has underestimated the response to this issue. I really believe that if Dr. Chapman would have issued a press release simply stating that "due to philosophical differences" he had asked for -and received- Clark's resignation, everything would have been a whole lot simpler. Instead, the silence and lack of clarity may very well prove damaging beyond repair for Dr. Chapman. And that makes me sad for him. Why? Because he has faithfully and dutifully served our Convention since 1992. He has literally "stood in the gap" for Southern Baptist causes and issues.
How is this issue linked to the GCR? Well, first of all, I do not know that it is. But it certainly seems that way to a lot of people. Why? Because as has already been noted, Dr. Chapman has made clear his opposition to the GCR document, particularly Article IX, and the formation of the GCR Task Force. How does that relate to Clark's resignation? Is it related to Clark's forced resignation? For those who do not know Clark, he once worked and served at Southern Seminary. Who is the President of Southern? Who made the motion to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint the GCR Task Force? That's right - Dr. R. Albert Mohler. I believe that the whole issue of the GCR has become very personal for Dr. Chapman and that Clark is the victim of his association and friendship with Dr. Mohler. I realize that may sound ludicrous or off-the-wall to some, but it is just my opinion. And I believe that opinion is shared by many who know Clark.
As I just mentioned, the GCR seems to be morphing into a personal tug-of-war between Dr. Chapman and those who support him with Dr. Hunt and those who support him. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly shaping up like that. And that is really unfortunate. The GCR should not become the next battleground for Southern Baptists, as it certainly seems to be doing. The GCR should be about seeking ways we can be more effective in our cooperation in fulfilling the Great Commission. That is why we voted to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint a GCR Task Force. However, I really believe there is more going on in all of this than any of us "regular" folks know.
In Christ,
Joe
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A Great Commission Resurgence? (Part 2)
I realize that many people may never read this blog. That is okay as this blog serves more as a release for me and an outlet for my thoughts. To those who know me, that can be a scary proposition!
I want to continue discussing the GCR Task Force that was appointed by Dr. Johnny Hunt and their mission as I understand it. This group of 18 people (19 if you count Dr. Hunt) represent a treasure trove of wisdom and experience in Southern Baptist life. (And let me state for the record, of which I was previously unaware, that Dr. Hunt announced at a news conference on the first day of the convention that he would name the task force members by the following morning if the motion passed.) In no manner or fashion do I want anything I say or write to be considered as questioning any of these individuals integrity or commitment to Christ. I have nothing but respect and admiration for every one of these 19 people, their families, and the churches they serve and attend. With that being stated, I wish to address some concerns that I have with the GCR Task Force.
There was a lot of talk leading up to the 2009 SBC Annual Meeting in Louisville about the Great Commission Resurgence as proposed by Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Johnny Hunt. I do not think there is anyone who can challenge or doubt the commitment or faithfulness of either of these two men to our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church, the Bible, or the Great Commission. Their record of service to our Lord Jesus and His Kingdom is exemplary. No one wants to be considered as being opposed to the Great Commission, unless they are a liberal or an unbeliever (one is not necessarily the same as the other, although they are usually very close). So with much fear and trepidation, let me continue.
The motion to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint a GCR Task Force was overwhelmingly approved by messengers on Tuesday night of the convention. There was some opposition to the motion, most notable by a messenger who tried to link the motion with a desire to move the SBC in a more Calvinistic direction. He cited the decline of the Primitive Baptist denomination as an indicator of where our Convention would end up if the motion was approved. I could not help but wonder, as I'm sure many others in the room did as well, how this motion and Primitive Baptists and Calvinism could be linked together. (In response, could someone make the same claim in reverse and compare the motion to Freewill Baptists and Arminian beliefs? Enough of that nonsense!) This motion, as stated, was about studying and questioning how our convention, through our agencies, can be more effective in fulfilling the Great Commission. I voted for this motion, because as I have stated in my previous post, I do not believe it is ever wrong to try and ensure that our CP dollars are being used wisely and effectively.
The GCR Task Force is supposed to study and evaluate over the next year how we can be more effective as a convention in fulfilling the Great Commission. The Task Force has not received the authority to make any changes, only to study and possibly make recommendations at next year's meeting in Orlando. Yet it seems as if Dr. Floyd has taken the bull by the horns with his chairmanship. How?
First, he has asked for 5,000 prayer warriors who will pray daily for the committee. I plan to pray for this committee and I would hope that many others will do the same. I plan to sign up as soon as the website Dr. Floyd mentioned is made available. However, Dr. Floyd has used language that seems to place added emphasis upon what this committee is about. He has referred to it as a "critical assignment" (BP article, June 29, 2009). I believe the work of this committee in the next year is very important. I look forward to hearing their report. Yet, they have barely even begun and already it sounds as if some things have been decided already.
At a D.Min seminar and conference at SWBTS on Monday, Dr. Floyd stated several things in regard to Dr. Morris Chapman in regard to GCR (as reported by Nathan Lino on his twitter site, http://twitter.com/nathanlino, which I'm sure is a paraphrasing of Dr. Floyd's comments). Now let me state that I was not at all pleased with Dr. Chapman's "report" at the convention. As a matter of fact, I was shocked at his words and the tone of his words. He had already stated his concerns with the GCR document prior to the convention, but his statements during his report were well off-base, in my opinion. Attempting to link GCR with Calvinism sounded like a desperate plea intended to cause fear and misinformation about GCR. A quick perusal of the team that Dr. Hunt assembled should put those fears to rest!
Now back to Dr. Floyd's statements on Monday. In fairness to Dr. Floyd, I was not at the meeting so I did not hear his stated plans for the GCR team. I'm sure his plans are noble and well-intentioned. What concerns me, however, are his comments regarding Dr. Chapman. He stated that Dr. Chapman works for the churches of the convention (TRUE). He went on to say that Dr. Chapman needs to get on board with GCR and support it and that if he doesn't, then pastors should contact Executive Committee trustees and tell them of their concerns about Dr. Chapman's lack of support. That sounds too much like a threat to me. I believe that Dr. Chapman does not need to be afraid of the GCR committee and that he should be supportive of the committee's work of evaluation during the next year, especially since it was approved by about 95% of the assembled messengers. However, I do not believe that Dr. Floyd needs to make comments such as this in regard to Dr. Chapman. The GCR committee is a "study" committee. They have been empowered to evaluate, study, and report back to next year's convention. They may make possible recommendations, and I expect they will, based upon their evaluation and study, but that has yet to be determined. Or has it?
It just seems like to me that there is the possible perception of an agenda at work here with the GCR committee. Sometimes, these things can take on a life of their own. This issue is not about conservatives and liberals. I really do not believe it is age-driven, either, although that may be more of a factor than I think. What I have heard repeatedly by men I trust and know to be very conservative, is that they are suspicious that the formation of this committee is an attempt to perform an "end-run" around the CP. In other words, they believe that some mega-church pastors would like to have all of their missions giving counted as CP giving. Remember, this is the perception by quite a few people that I know.
I believe that this perception has its roots in the defeat of Ronnie Floyd in 2006 and the aftermath from the Convention in Greensboro. There were many "power brokers" upset that Dr. Frank Page defeated Dr. Floyd. Many people believe, and I am one of them, that one of the main reasons Dr. Page won was because his church gave 13% of their undesignated receipts to the CP while Dr. Floyd's church only gave 0.27%. Again, what each church gives is at it's sole discretion. There is not a set amount that a church must give to the CP. However, many average Baptists did not think Dr. Floyd was the best choice to serve as President of the SBC when his church only gave 0.27% to the CP. Whether that is right or wrong, that was the decision of the messengers in 2006.
Since then, though, there has been a lot of talk about allowing churches to count their total missions giving, as well as their direct giving to SBC agencies apart from the CP, as a part of their CP giving percentage. I could write a lot about this, but let me point you to an excellent article by Dr. Ken Hemphill that appeared on Baptist Press entitled, "Should designated giving be counted as CP?" (http://www.bpnews.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=30619). In a nutshell, Dr. Hemphill states the obvious very succinctly about counting designated missions giving apart from CP gifts as though they are CP gifts. I hope that is not really what is behind the GCR initiative and task force. But it is a very real concern to a number of good people throughout the Convention.
Let me close this post by stating again that I am in favor of the GCR committee and will be praying for them during the next year. I really hope that this is about how we can effectively fulfill the Great Commission. Only time will tell.
In Christ,
Joe
I want to continue discussing the GCR Task Force that was appointed by Dr. Johnny Hunt and their mission as I understand it. This group of 18 people (19 if you count Dr. Hunt) represent a treasure trove of wisdom and experience in Southern Baptist life. (And let me state for the record, of which I was previously unaware, that Dr. Hunt announced at a news conference on the first day of the convention that he would name the task force members by the following morning if the motion passed.) In no manner or fashion do I want anything I say or write to be considered as questioning any of these individuals integrity or commitment to Christ. I have nothing but respect and admiration for every one of these 19 people, their families, and the churches they serve and attend. With that being stated, I wish to address some concerns that I have with the GCR Task Force.
There was a lot of talk leading up to the 2009 SBC Annual Meeting in Louisville about the Great Commission Resurgence as proposed by Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Johnny Hunt. I do not think there is anyone who can challenge or doubt the commitment or faithfulness of either of these two men to our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church, the Bible, or the Great Commission. Their record of service to our Lord Jesus and His Kingdom is exemplary. No one wants to be considered as being opposed to the Great Commission, unless they are a liberal or an unbeliever (one is not necessarily the same as the other, although they are usually very close). So with much fear and trepidation, let me continue.
The motion to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint a GCR Task Force was overwhelmingly approved by messengers on Tuesday night of the convention. There was some opposition to the motion, most notable by a messenger who tried to link the motion with a desire to move the SBC in a more Calvinistic direction. He cited the decline of the Primitive Baptist denomination as an indicator of where our Convention would end up if the motion was approved. I could not help but wonder, as I'm sure many others in the room did as well, how this motion and Primitive Baptists and Calvinism could be linked together. (In response, could someone make the same claim in reverse and compare the motion to Freewill Baptists and Arminian beliefs? Enough of that nonsense!) This motion, as stated, was about studying and questioning how our convention, through our agencies, can be more effective in fulfilling the Great Commission. I voted for this motion, because as I have stated in my previous post, I do not believe it is ever wrong to try and ensure that our CP dollars are being used wisely and effectively.
The GCR Task Force is supposed to study and evaluate over the next year how we can be more effective as a convention in fulfilling the Great Commission. The Task Force has not received the authority to make any changes, only to study and possibly make recommendations at next year's meeting in Orlando. Yet it seems as if Dr. Floyd has taken the bull by the horns with his chairmanship. How?
First, he has asked for 5,000 prayer warriors who will pray daily for the committee. I plan to pray for this committee and I would hope that many others will do the same. I plan to sign up as soon as the website Dr. Floyd mentioned is made available. However, Dr. Floyd has used language that seems to place added emphasis upon what this committee is about. He has referred to it as a "critical assignment" (BP article, June 29, 2009). I believe the work of this committee in the next year is very important. I look forward to hearing their report. Yet, they have barely even begun and already it sounds as if some things have been decided already.
At a D.Min seminar and conference at SWBTS on Monday, Dr. Floyd stated several things in regard to Dr. Morris Chapman in regard to GCR (as reported by Nathan Lino on his twitter site, http://twitter.com/nathanlino, which I'm sure is a paraphrasing of Dr. Floyd's comments). Now let me state that I was not at all pleased with Dr. Chapman's "report" at the convention. As a matter of fact, I was shocked at his words and the tone of his words. He had already stated his concerns with the GCR document prior to the convention, but his statements during his report were well off-base, in my opinion. Attempting to link GCR with Calvinism sounded like a desperate plea intended to cause fear and misinformation about GCR. A quick perusal of the team that Dr. Hunt assembled should put those fears to rest!
Now back to Dr. Floyd's statements on Monday. In fairness to Dr. Floyd, I was not at the meeting so I did not hear his stated plans for the GCR team. I'm sure his plans are noble and well-intentioned. What concerns me, however, are his comments regarding Dr. Chapman. He stated that Dr. Chapman works for the churches of the convention (TRUE). He went on to say that Dr. Chapman needs to get on board with GCR and support it and that if he doesn't, then pastors should contact Executive Committee trustees and tell them of their concerns about Dr. Chapman's lack of support. That sounds too much like a threat to me. I believe that Dr. Chapman does not need to be afraid of the GCR committee and that he should be supportive of the committee's work of evaluation during the next year, especially since it was approved by about 95% of the assembled messengers. However, I do not believe that Dr. Floyd needs to make comments such as this in regard to Dr. Chapman. The GCR committee is a "study" committee. They have been empowered to evaluate, study, and report back to next year's convention. They may make possible recommendations, and I expect they will, based upon their evaluation and study, but that has yet to be determined. Or has it?
It just seems like to me that there is the possible perception of an agenda at work here with the GCR committee. Sometimes, these things can take on a life of their own. This issue is not about conservatives and liberals. I really do not believe it is age-driven, either, although that may be more of a factor than I think. What I have heard repeatedly by men I trust and know to be very conservative, is that they are suspicious that the formation of this committee is an attempt to perform an "end-run" around the CP. In other words, they believe that some mega-church pastors would like to have all of their missions giving counted as CP giving. Remember, this is the perception by quite a few people that I know.
I believe that this perception has its roots in the defeat of Ronnie Floyd in 2006 and the aftermath from the Convention in Greensboro. There were many "power brokers" upset that Dr. Frank Page defeated Dr. Floyd. Many people believe, and I am one of them, that one of the main reasons Dr. Page won was because his church gave 13% of their undesignated receipts to the CP while Dr. Floyd's church only gave 0.27%. Again, what each church gives is at it's sole discretion. There is not a set amount that a church must give to the CP. However, many average Baptists did not think Dr. Floyd was the best choice to serve as President of the SBC when his church only gave 0.27% to the CP. Whether that is right or wrong, that was the decision of the messengers in 2006.
Since then, though, there has been a lot of talk about allowing churches to count their total missions giving, as well as their direct giving to SBC agencies apart from the CP, as a part of their CP giving percentage. I could write a lot about this, but let me point you to an excellent article by Dr. Ken Hemphill that appeared on Baptist Press entitled, "Should designated giving be counted as CP?" (http://www.bpnews.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=30619). In a nutshell, Dr. Hemphill states the obvious very succinctly about counting designated missions giving apart from CP gifts as though they are CP gifts. I hope that is not really what is behind the GCR initiative and task force. But it is a very real concern to a number of good people throughout the Convention.
Let me close this post by stating again that I am in favor of the GCR committee and will be praying for them during the next year. I really hope that this is about how we can effectively fulfill the Great Commission. Only time will tell.
In Christ,
Joe
Monday, July 6, 2009
A Great Commission Resurgence? (Part 1)
At the SBC Annual Meeting this past June, messengers overwhelmingly approved the motion by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, allowing Johnny Hunt, President of the SBC, the authority to appoint a Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) Task Force. The purpose of this task force is to study and report back to the 2010 Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida how Southern Baptists can work "more faithfully and effectively together in serving Christ through the Great Commission." The next morning Dr. Hunt named the 18 people he had appointed to this task force, which is to be chaired by Dr. Ronnie Floyd, pastor of First Baptist Church in Springdale, Arkansas.
Let me state that I voted in favor of this task force. I think it is a good thing to reevaluate from time to time in order to make sure we are being effective and faithful stewards of our Cooperative Program dollars. I think it is especially good that we always seek to be more effective in fulfilling the Great Commission. However, with that being stated, let me express some concerns that I have.
While the messengers overwhelmingly approved the formation of the GCR Task Force, I have a sneaking suspicion that if the messengers had known who some of the members of this task force were going to be in advance, the vote would have been a little more interesting. As I have already noted in an earlier blog, I was surprised by the appointment of Dr. Floyd as the chairman of this task force. I do not mean to imply, infer, or otherwise suggest in any form or fashion that Dr. Floyd is anything but an honorable Christian man and pastor. I believe he is all of that. And yet, when it comes to studying our agencies to see if they are effectively utilizing our Great Commission dollars, I believe that there are other men more qualified to lead this study. Why would I suggest that there are others more qualified than Dr. Floyd to chair this committee?
Go back with me three years to the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC. Dr. Frank Page was elected as President of the SBC. Dr. Floyd had been the "anointed" nominee by the "power brokers" within the convention hierarchy. Yet a groundswell of resentment grew as it became known that Dr. Floyd's church had only given .27%, which amounted to $32,000.00, of their undesignated offerings to the CP. They gave another $189,000.00, 1.58% of their undesignated offerings, to the SBC allocation budget. The church's chief administrative officer, Ben Mayes, according to a Baptist Press article dated May 12, 2006, stated that the church had given over $489,000.00 to SBC causes. In sum total, FBC Springdale, under Dr. Floyd's leadership, gave less than 5% of their $11, 952,137.00 undesignated offerings to SBC causes. (This percentage is actually less when you allow for the fact that Lottie and Annie gifts are from designated giving.) The majority of their gifts to SBC causes was outside of the CP. In fairness, they did give a total of $2,648,000.00 to mission and evangelism causes, which is certainly commendable by any standard.
There is not a designated amount or percentage that any church is obligated to give to CP causes. That is the sole responsibility of each individual church to decide. But can I say that, as pastor of a smaller church, I am sick and tired of hearing pastors of larger churches, i.e., "mega-churches," spout off that we do not spend percentages, but dollars and cents. Excuse me? Percentages do equate to dollars and cents! What if every church in the convention followed the rationale of some, not all, of our mega-churches to CP giving? I realize that the smaller percentages from these larger churches usually equal or exceed the grand total of dollars from smaller churches. Yet, if smaller churches followed this rationale, giving would drop significantly across the convention. I am grateful for every dollar given to the CP. But never let us think that dollars are more important than percentages, because one is tied to the other. Spouting that line is a way to throw attention off of the percentage given and direct attention to the dollar amount, which looks more impressive. Yet, let us not forget what Jesus said about the widow who put in her two mites (Luke 21:1-4). Just because a church gives more dollar-wise does not necessarily mean they have given more! How many of these mega-church pastors would like for their membership to use this rationale in their giving to their church?
I believe one of the main reasons that Ronnie Floyd was defeated in his bid for SBC President was his church's CP giving percentage. I readily admit that this is just my opinion, but I can say that I have heard this same opinion repeated by numerous people. (CP giving is very important to a lot of people in the SBC. And not just the older generation, either.) Now I know that some will say Dr. Floyd was defeated because Jerry Sutton entered the race and took votes away from him. That may be possible, but it is also possible that Dr. Sutton also took some votes away from Frank Page. We will never know for sure, now will we? How does that play into the current discussion? Since his defeat, not much has been heard from Dr. Floyd on a national level. He has certainly been an influential leader within the SBC, having served on the Executive Committee of the SBC and as a trustee for GuideStone. Yet, during the last three years he has been "under the radar." His defeat was a blow to many within the "power hierarchy" of the SBC. This position now puts him back into an influential position, one that I believe would be better filled by someone else. Who would that be? Before I name anyone, let me state that I have not spoken to either of the two men I am about to name or anyone associated or affiliated with them. This is only my personal opinion.
I believe that either Larry Wynn, pastor of Hebron Baptist in Dacula, Georgia, or Dr. Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro Baptist in Lawrenceville, Georgia, would have been much better and wiser picks to serve as chairman of this task force. Why? Both of these churches give at least 10% of their undesignated offerings to the CP. In 2006, Hebron Baptist gave $1,000,000.00 to the CP! North Metro gives 13% of their gifts to the CP. And these figures do not include their Lottie and Annie gifts!
Again, no church is obligated to give a set amount to the CP. But if we are going to form a task force to see how our agencies and convention might effectively and wisely work together for the Great Commission, would it not be better to have someone lead this task force who has a proven and faithful track record in CP giving? Currently, FBC Springdale is giving 2.2% of their undesignated gifts to the CP as opposed to .27% just three years ago. I believe that Dr. Floyd is slowly leading his church to give more to the CP and I commend him for that. I realize that you cannot make substantial leaps in giving percentages overnight. Yet, both Larry Wynn and Frank Cox have proven to be leaders in the SBC in leading their churches to give 10% or more to the CP. (And they still support other mission endeavors at the same time.) I just happen to believe that if we are going to appoint a task force to study and see how we can better utilize CP dollars in fulfilling the Great Commission, then that same task force should be chaired by a CP champion!
This post has gone on long enough. I will be praying for Dr. Floyd as he leads the GCR Task Force. In my next post, I will write about some other things that are beginning to bother me with the GCR Task Force.
In Christ,
Joe
Let me state that I voted in favor of this task force. I think it is a good thing to reevaluate from time to time in order to make sure we are being effective and faithful stewards of our Cooperative Program dollars. I think it is especially good that we always seek to be more effective in fulfilling the Great Commission. However, with that being stated, let me express some concerns that I have.
While the messengers overwhelmingly approved the formation of the GCR Task Force, I have a sneaking suspicion that if the messengers had known who some of the members of this task force were going to be in advance, the vote would have been a little more interesting. As I have already noted in an earlier blog, I was surprised by the appointment of Dr. Floyd as the chairman of this task force. I do not mean to imply, infer, or otherwise suggest in any form or fashion that Dr. Floyd is anything but an honorable Christian man and pastor. I believe he is all of that. And yet, when it comes to studying our agencies to see if they are effectively utilizing our Great Commission dollars, I believe that there are other men more qualified to lead this study. Why would I suggest that there are others more qualified than Dr. Floyd to chair this committee?
Go back with me three years to the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC. Dr. Frank Page was elected as President of the SBC. Dr. Floyd had been the "anointed" nominee by the "power brokers" within the convention hierarchy. Yet a groundswell of resentment grew as it became known that Dr. Floyd's church had only given .27%, which amounted to $32,000.00, of their undesignated offerings to the CP. They gave another $189,000.00, 1.58% of their undesignated offerings, to the SBC allocation budget. The church's chief administrative officer, Ben Mayes, according to a Baptist Press article dated May 12, 2006, stated that the church had given over $489,000.00 to SBC causes. In sum total, FBC Springdale, under Dr. Floyd's leadership, gave less than 5% of their $11, 952,137.00 undesignated offerings to SBC causes. (This percentage is actually less when you allow for the fact that Lottie and Annie gifts are from designated giving.) The majority of their gifts to SBC causes was outside of the CP. In fairness, they did give a total of $2,648,000.00 to mission and evangelism causes, which is certainly commendable by any standard.
There is not a designated amount or percentage that any church is obligated to give to CP causes. That is the sole responsibility of each individual church to decide. But can I say that, as pastor of a smaller church, I am sick and tired of hearing pastors of larger churches, i.e., "mega-churches," spout off that we do not spend percentages, but dollars and cents. Excuse me? Percentages do equate to dollars and cents! What if every church in the convention followed the rationale of some, not all, of our mega-churches to CP giving? I realize that the smaller percentages from these larger churches usually equal or exceed the grand total of dollars from smaller churches. Yet, if smaller churches followed this rationale, giving would drop significantly across the convention. I am grateful for every dollar given to the CP. But never let us think that dollars are more important than percentages, because one is tied to the other. Spouting that line is a way to throw attention off of the percentage given and direct attention to the dollar amount, which looks more impressive. Yet, let us not forget what Jesus said about the widow who put in her two mites (Luke 21:1-4). Just because a church gives more dollar-wise does not necessarily mean they have given more! How many of these mega-church pastors would like for their membership to use this rationale in their giving to their church?
I believe one of the main reasons that Ronnie Floyd was defeated in his bid for SBC President was his church's CP giving percentage. I readily admit that this is just my opinion, but I can say that I have heard this same opinion repeated by numerous people. (CP giving is very important to a lot of people in the SBC. And not just the older generation, either.) Now I know that some will say Dr. Floyd was defeated because Jerry Sutton entered the race and took votes away from him. That may be possible, but it is also possible that Dr. Sutton also took some votes away from Frank Page. We will never know for sure, now will we? How does that play into the current discussion? Since his defeat, not much has been heard from Dr. Floyd on a national level. He has certainly been an influential leader within the SBC, having served on the Executive Committee of the SBC and as a trustee for GuideStone. Yet, during the last three years he has been "under the radar." His defeat was a blow to many within the "power hierarchy" of the SBC. This position now puts him back into an influential position, one that I believe would be better filled by someone else. Who would that be? Before I name anyone, let me state that I have not spoken to either of the two men I am about to name or anyone associated or affiliated with them. This is only my personal opinion.
I believe that either Larry Wynn, pastor of Hebron Baptist in Dacula, Georgia, or Dr. Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro Baptist in Lawrenceville, Georgia, would have been much better and wiser picks to serve as chairman of this task force. Why? Both of these churches give at least 10% of their undesignated offerings to the CP. In 2006, Hebron Baptist gave $1,000,000.00 to the CP! North Metro gives 13% of their gifts to the CP. And these figures do not include their Lottie and Annie gifts!
Again, no church is obligated to give a set amount to the CP. But if we are going to form a task force to see how our agencies and convention might effectively and wisely work together for the Great Commission, would it not be better to have someone lead this task force who has a proven and faithful track record in CP giving? Currently, FBC Springdale is giving 2.2% of their undesignated gifts to the CP as opposed to .27% just three years ago. I believe that Dr. Floyd is slowly leading his church to give more to the CP and I commend him for that. I realize that you cannot make substantial leaps in giving percentages overnight. Yet, both Larry Wynn and Frank Cox have proven to be leaders in the SBC in leading their churches to give 10% or more to the CP. (And they still support other mission endeavors at the same time.) I just happen to believe that if we are going to appoint a task force to study and see how we can better utilize CP dollars in fulfilling the Great Commission, then that same task force should be chaired by a CP champion!
This post has gone on long enough. I will be praying for Dr. Floyd as he leads the GCR Task Force. In my next post, I will write about some other things that are beginning to bother me with the GCR Task Force.
In Christ,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)