By Law 31 is merely one sentence, which gives us room for some consideration of it and other pertinent matters today.
The By Law governing the adoption of reports is a good follow up on yesterday’s By Law governing the giving of reports. Since it is so brief, I will post it in its entirety for you here:
The adoption of recommendations contained in reports to the Convention shall not bind the Convention on any other matters in the body of the reports; but the Convention reserves the right to consider and amend the body of all reports.
What does this mean? As I read it, the Convention may accept the recommendation of an entity, but the acceptance of that recommendation does not constitute the acceptance of the report as a whole. Rather, the convention may amend the reports of the agencies and entities if it so chooses.
Some may see an opportunity here that is not there. Do not assume that you might change the report of the IMB to reflect a shift in policy and that the IMB would then be governed by the wording therein. That would not affect the policies or procedures in any way.
You may, however, clarify something that you think is glossed over in a report. If there is a section that is not quite “transparent” in its dealings with a certain topic, you may move that the section be rephrased in a more accurate way. With a majority vote on the amendment, the report will be codified in the Book of Reports and the Annual as you may reword it.
Let me again urge temperance with such a thing. If you are considered rude or mean to the person giving the report, you will only invite the ire of the Convention body to be directed toward you and your position.
If you choose to do this, choose your words wisely and make them as kind as you can while still maintaining your point with integrity.
Having gone quickly through this point, roughly 2/3 through the entire Primer Presentation, I open the floor for questions and comments.
I will start with this question: Has anyone heard anything new about potential nominees for President? It was rumored that Johnny Hunt would be bowing out of the race, but since we have not heard any more, I think it may have been idle talk or wishful thinking. What do you think? Also, I am expecting at least one more nomination this year. Any ideas on who it may be?
If we follow the pattern of watching the Pastor’s Conference for “anointed” candidate, it might seem the candidate from YSBC is Tim Sweatman, since he is on the podium at the Young Leaders Summit II. Way to go, Tim!
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 8:19 am:
Tim sounds like a great choice!
Great work as usual Art!
Missionary Joe
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 8:35 am:
I, for one, am tired of electing officers who aren’t supported of the SBC. I have felt this way for years, which includes a list of “big name” presidents whose churches gave little to CP, Lottie, Annie, and friends. Supporting SBC causes is a voluntary thing for each church. We all respect that and most of us like that about the SBC. The other side of that hand is that we also voluntarily pick our leaders. The leaders, IMHO, should be people we want to really “lead” us. What if we really followed them? What if we took their lead in giving? I won’t comment about Greear or Drake because I don’t know them. Maybe somebody knows how Hunt’s church does in that area. Dorcas? But if the best we can do in the area of leadership is pastors who can’t or won’t even lead their churches to give more than 1% to the CP and a relatively small percentage to Lottie, then we are really hurting for leaders in missional causes. Isn’t that the reason we cooperate? To work together to be on mission with God in his plan – the great commission? I would love for someone to nominate other candidates. I suspect a good YSBC leader who’s church gives 10% or more to the CP, and that was mentioned in nominating them, would win. Tim, how’s your church giving to CP :)
Thanks for the post, Art.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 8:44 am:
MJ,
I planted a church near Johnny Hunt. First, I would rather have a more progressive candidate.
However, Johnny Hunt and FBCW are a very missions minded church. They were helpful to us. They allowed us to baptise there. Some of his staff were very helpful to me personally. I have never met him but I know his brother. They have a great impact on that area.
They don’t just talk missions–they do it.
art rogers
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 9:46 am:
MJ,
I have nothing personal against Johnny Hunt. I am uncomfortable with the way he has portrayed some of the “Calvinists” in the convention. I think it ill becomes the leader of the Convention to alienate solid conservatives over such non-essentials.
I also think that he should lead his church to cooperate in the CP better. I understand that he and one other person put their heads together and come up with a number, and that percentages are not figured. I asked the same question you did in a post over at SBC Outpost. The answer is that last year they gave $413,000 of a $17.1 million budget. That is 2.6%. I understand that giving to Lottie and Annie are very high goals – much higher, in fact than the actual giving to the CP.
On top of this, they just finished an $80+ million dollar building campaign.
A lot of money.
I would be willing to vote for Johnny, but I want him to quit trying to chase out “Calvinists” and to lead out in cooperation.
Tim is still the front runner for the YSBC vote, apparently. Wait until he sees this.
Tim Sweatman
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 11:20 am:
Oh my, we have lost our minds, haven’t we? To quote a political figure of the past, “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party.” Besides, I don’t qualify under the new CP proposals. (Of course, most candidates don’t.) Our church has set aside 4% for CP in our budget, but to be honest we don’t come close to even giving that. I haven’t had much better luck in getting them to support Lottie and Annie. Unfortunately, most people in our church view missions as a luxury, to be supported if there’s money left over after paying (in this order) utilities, insurance, my salary, Sunday school literature, our twice-a-year potluck and gospel singing, building upkeep, and any local ministry projects. You can probably see the brick marks on my forehead from my efforts to change this.
art rogers
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 11:25 am:
Tim,
Are you not leading toward change? I think your own words expose your heart for cooperation and missions.
Tim Sweatman: The YSBC Candidate. ;)
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 11:57 am:
Art,
actually they didn’t have a building campaign. They are paying for their worship center through their budget.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 12:00 pm:
I have a question?
1st my church does give 10% to CP, but where in the Bible does it say a church has to tithe? Just wondering.
art rogers
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 12:11 pm:
Kevin,
Thanks for the clarification. I was repeating what I read in a comment elsewhere.
I do admit that the problem with blogs is that sometimes we take as fact that which is not already verified, but is the recollection or mistaken underestanding of others. This is why we must be clear and verify what we are able.
For anyone reading, Kevin is an able scholar. I say this because I don’t want you to make the mistake of thinking he does not really know what the bible says on this subject. Rather, he acurately makes the point witha question, that the Bible does not ask churches to tithe.
The only description sharing money between churches in the New Testament is the collection of money for those in need in the Jerusalem church. The admonition there, as always, is that they should give sacrificially – which they did.
Our Convnetions and Associations are modern cultural phenomenae that were not in existence in the new Testament era, so the Bible does not speak to the governance of such. I think the Executive Committee has possibly extrapolated the Biblical principle of individual tithes and applied that principle to our churches.
This is not the only time we see this done in Baptist life, though. the principle of the autonomy of the local church is the extrapolation of the principle of Priesthood of the Believer. Every Believer answers directly to God, and, therefore, every Assembly of Believers answers directly to God.
So there is some merit to the thought, but Kevin is correct. There is no specific Biblical madate for a church to tithe.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 12:22 pm:
Art,
I’m struggling with this 10% CP stuff. Maybe the reason some Mega-churches don’t is because they know something we don’t. Just a thought.
Thanks for the research!
Missionary Joe
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 12:27 pm:
Kevin
Thanks for your comments. I just threw out the 10% number thing because it’s a good looking number. :) Nothing more intended there. Definitely not a rule I would want to pass. I don’t think the president or vice presidents have to be from churches that give 10%. I just think we need to have leaders that reflect our priorities as a conv. I know nothing about Johnny Hunt. Sounds like their church has it “goin’ on” in the area of missions. As an M I tend to look more at the Annie and Lottie offerings than I do at percent because:
1. That’s money that generally gets to its’ target more directly – missions.
2. It reflects individuals’ commitment to participate, which IMHO, is a better indicater of a desire to be a “cooperating missional” fellowship.
Don’t get me wrong. CP is great. But sometimes it gets lost in the shuffle and most people in the pew don’t know anything about CP. They couldn’t tell you how many pennies from each dollar actually get to the IMB or NAMB.
Tim
Thanks for your openess in sharing. Wouldn’t it be great if SBC leaders and prospective leaders would take Tim’s lead in saying what’s important in their churches? I think I’m still on your bandwagon for president:)
Kevin
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 3:35 pm:
Art & everyone
What a great day to go fishing! Any way maybe Dr. Hunt and FBCW don’t give a high % because he knows something we don’t. (i.e. possible waste in the IMB/NAMB.) He is closer to the BIG DOGS than most of us. I also agree I listen to him online a lot and love the his heart for winning the lost and yes he is harsh on Calvinist and having a few Calvinists friends I can understand why. To those who are Calvinists please understand if you speak to a person who has a passion for winning the lost and though cold water on them by telling them it is a waste of time because if they are the elect they will come to Christ if their not they will not. I had one say that to me in front of a young man I had been talking to and who I could tell was on the verge of accepting Christ turn and say you mean if I am his I can come to Him any time and he walked away lost as a ball in high weeds. So you can see where his frustration may be I don’t know if that is his story but it is mine. By the way my church gives 12% to CP and we have met our goal on Lottie and Anne 2 years in a row.
NO I Do not want any position in the SBC right now.
I need a couple of staff members more than I need to give to the SBC.
Sorry if that offends any one but right now I am it and the church is growing to the point of needing help. Pray that God would send me that help. I am.
In Him
Kevin Lancaster
Jason Sampler
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 8:26 pm:
Gentlemen and Scholars (and Art :O, just kidding, friend),
I believe Art is quoting information that I provided on another blog a few months ago concerning FBC Woodstock. I spoke with their financial secretary concerning their CP giving. Her answer was that Hunt and the Missions Pastor (whoever that is, I’m not sure) come up with a specific amount they will give to the CP every year. This figure is not based on their intake; it is a set figure that they come up with each year. The numbers you gave ($400,000 CP giving and $17.1 million in gifts seem to be the right numbers from my recollection of the conversation with the financial secretary).
Whether he ‘knows’ something about NAMB/IMB that we don’t is only a guess at best. The point, though, is that Southern Baptists cooperate in missions through a specific way, the Cooperative Program. It is most certainly true that FBC Woodstock is missions minded. That’s never been a question. That they only give 2.6% to the CP is their choice; they are autonomous and should not be chastised for whatever amount they choose to give to the CP. The rub comes, though, if Hunt is chosen to be the ‘face’ of the Southern Baptist Convention while at the same time blatantly refusing to participate in missions like the vast majority of the rest of the Southern Baptist churches. How can he lead us when, in our most notable aspect as a convention, his church fails miserably in cooperation? I can’t speak for others, but that is the primary problem I have with Hunt running for president of our convention. Of course his straw-man caricatures of Calvinism runs a close second, but I think could be overcome with clear dialogue. I don’t think his views on the CP can be as easily modified.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 10:44 pm:
Jason brings up a valid point. I have no problem with making 10% or whatever to be a requirement for being in office.
Tim Sweatman
on Apr 18th, 2006
@ 11:13 pm:
Kevin,
The command for churches to tithe is located 4 verses after the command to rebaptize someone who was not baptized by a qualified administrator and 3 chapters before the passage about missionaries being forbidden to practice a prayer language or tongues. I believe all of this is found in the book of Malarkey.
I actually think it’s a good idea for churches to give 10% to CP, but it’s not a sin if they don’t. I also tend to think that people who hold positions of leadership on the denominational level should come from churches that give proportionally to CP, since CP is the official SBC plan for supporting missions, the national denomination, and state conventions. And their churches should give generously to Lottie and Annie.
I think one reason that many megachurches don’t give as high a percentage to CP is that they have the means to undertake large scale missions projects on their own. They are able to do missions and not just support missions. I really can’t criticize a church for that.
MJ,
Unfortunately my church and I have different views of what’s important. But that’s another story.
Art,
Having the heart for it is one thing. Figuring out how to get it done is another.
Besides, we need to nominate a proven winner. I lost my last election, for student body president my senior year of high school. The only running I’ve done since then is for the front of the buffet line.
Then again, I could use my campaign fund to finally build Hilltop Manor in the neighborhood. Hmmm…
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 8:04 am:
Tim,
“book of Malarkey”
nice :)
Anonymous
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 9:24 am:
Tim,
I believe the KJV spelling on that is
Malarkiah
One of the most quoted passages from the book of Malarkiah is
“God helps those who help themselves.”
:-)
Ron West
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 11:13 am:
Art,
Probably no one will read this since you have already started another thread but I can’t help but comment on some of the things I have read in this string.
I do not think there is anything magic about the 10% figure mentioned for churches giving to the cooperative program. That was a number the SBC task force suggested that churches should aim for and they suggested that we should select leaders who have a record of support for the cooperative program. I do think that an elected leader should be willing to lead his church to give at least as much as the average SBC church. I think that is around 7% or 8%.
As an IMB M I have had about 7 furloughs or STAS as they are called now. Every time I speak in churches I encourage them to support the cooperative program, the Lottie Moon offering and other missions offerings. It bothers me to do that when I know that the SBC president is not supporting the cooperative program and often the churches of the IMB trustee chairman and many trustees give far less than the average church. How can these men demand the right to determine how the cooperative program money is spent when they do not feel it important to give their fair share.
Kevin says that maybe Johnny Hunt knows something and that is why he doesn’t support the CP. I don’t believe that. I do know something however, the cooperative program has been blessed by God in giving Southern Baptist the resources to support two of the greatest missionary sending organizations in the world today. What I don’t know is why Johnny Hunt and the other conservative resurgence leaders do not want to support it.
Tim and Kevin seem to think that they can’t give because they do missions and don’t just support missions. Baloney!!! There is no excuse to separate the two. My home church has a budget of less than $500,000 a year but we have given 13% – 15% to the cooperative program all my life. We do missions and support missions as do many other churches. Have any of the pastors heard the story of the Widow’s mite? Do they not see how that relates to their church? They think because they have a big church that they should not be expected to give a large percent. The Bible says just the opposite is true!
In my time as an SBC missionary one SBC president called the cooperative program a golden calf in order to defend his church’s poor support for the program. I had another SBC president stand in front of me and a group of missionaries and tell us that if his candidate was not elected SBC president his church would have to consider reducing their giving to the cooperative program. Every missionary in that room understood him to say that it was more important to him to get his political friends elected than to support our work as missionaries.
Sorry if I offend some of you young leaders, but when it comes to attacking and putting down the cooperative program it gets personal with me.
art rogers
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 11:36 am:
Ron,
I think you have misunderstood somethings.
Tim said that he supports the CP strongly and has tried to lead his church to do so more, but they resist.
Kevin said that his church gives 12%. He doesn’t question the CP, he questions Dr. Hunt’s motivations – if there are any.
You have problems with presidents who do not support the CP. I agree.
Bobby Welch’s church gives 15% and has for the last 30 years.
My church gives 15% as well, which was cut five years ago from 20% because of a budget crunch. Before that, 20% had been our standard since, I think, before I was born.
It wasn’t my lead, by the way, to reduce the giving, either.
I think a careful reading of every post on this thread will reveal a heart FOR the CP.
Just for clarification.
Oh, and by the way, the president that you mention that spoke of reducing the CP giving contingent on the election – that’s the kind of thing that most Younger Leaders seek to abolish.
Ron West
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 5:51 pm:
Art,
I don’t think I misunderstood anything. Maybe you misundestood me. I like Tim and I am glad he encourages his church to support the CP. I know that sometimes the pastor cannot control how much the church gives. My problem was with Kevin B. and Tim saying that since Johnny Hunt’s church does missions, whatever that means, that somehow gives him an excuse to not support missions through the cooperative program. I repeat. Baloney!!! Also, I do not think Johnny Hunt knows some secret that the rest of us do not know and that is why his church only gives 1 or 2 percent to the cooperative program The truth is they had rather spend the money on themselves than on our missionaries. I do think Johnny Hunt is a good man and great pastor. However, when some one drops a dollar in the offering plate in my church or Bobby Welch church, 15 cents goes to the cooperative program. In Hunt’s church only one or two cents goes to the CP. That says something to me.
Ron West
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 7:03 pm:
I want to change my statement that Johnny Hunt’s church wants to spend the money on themselves instead of our missionaries. I have no idea how they spend their money. They probably do wonerful ministry things with the money. A more accurate statement might be, Johnny Hunt does not want to give up control over how that money is spent. It is hard for some super church pastors to trust our mission boards to spend money that they can control.
art rogers
on Apr 19th, 2006
@ 8:41 pm:
Ok, Ron. I hear you. I didn’t take anything that Kevin B. said as approving of doing and NOT giving, but Tim did say something about not blaming a church for that.
And I disagree. It is my responsability to do missions and support others doing missions, and I want my church to reflect that passion also.
Tim Sweatman
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 12:53 am:
Ron,
Looking back at my previous comments, I realize that I didn’t make myself exactly clear. I didn’t mean to imply that I endorse the attitude that if a church funds its own missions work then it’s OK for that church not to give generously to CP. When I said, “I really can’t criticize a church for that,” I was saying that I can’t criticize a church for actively participating in doing missions work, as opposed to limiting their missions involvment to simply funding others. I believe that SBC churches should both do missions projects AND generously support CP and our missions offerings.
I don’t know how much the control factor plays into the decision to give a smaller amount to CP. I would imagine that in some cases that is part of the rationale. I’ve also heard of some churches that give less to CP because such a small percentage of the money actually goes toward missions, so they compensate by giving the money that would have gone to CP to Lottie and Annie instead. I’m not endorsing this, just stating that it happens.
anna
on Apr 26th, 2006
@ 5:26 pm:
quick question: if an SBC church has members who desire to work with a specialized ministry outside of the IMB (Wycliffe, etc.) or don’t make it through the IMB’s process but still feel they are to serve the Lord overseas, they will be raising their support. That being the case, is it fair to judge an SBC church’s missions involvement based solely from how much they give to CP, without taking into consideration how much they are giving to members serving with partnering organizations?
art rogers
on Apr 26th, 2006
@ 7:16 pm:
Good point, Anna. The CP is the one standard that all Southern Baptist Churches share, though, so if we want to compare apples to apples, then CP is what we have to look for in each church.