As you know, the 10 percent standard for SBC leaders has come under fire. It has been debated, an amendment defeated and great arguments were given back and forth. It was a close vote in favor of removing the “10 percent” wording.
It will be voted on by the SBC and CAN BE CHANGED FROM THE FLOOR.
The relevance is that the deep debate makes it look really desperate for the chances of Ronnie Floyd in his Presidential bid.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Anonymous
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 6:52 pm:
It seems to me that there is a double standard in play here.
While I know that the ultimate goal of sending more missions money beyond the local church is admirable, the way of going about it is debateable.
I am tired of hearing “raise your CP Percentage” by convention leaders and then watching those churches which give less than 2% continually get held up as the ideal. [Check the locations of the last 10-20 International Mission Board missionary commissioning services and average out the CP giving percentage of the churches--but do it sitting down, as it will shock you]
But here is the catch: I know of a church in our area which sends 35% of its undesignated receipts through the CP. This is commendable. Yet, the church remains fairly small, even though the community around it is growing. Since the church’s budget is already stretched, the opportunity to call a part-time youth minister to reach familes is not within reach.
On the other hand, a church in the same community which had vision and wanted to reach its community while also being faithful to Acts 1:8 lowered its CP percentage, hired additional staff and five years has reached many new families. This church is actually sending more money through the CP at 5% than it did at 8%.
Which church do you think should get the Cooperative Program award at the end of the year?
Rzrbk
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 7:18 pm:
I am not sure I see how giving less money to the cooperative program results in reaching more people in your community. In fact I think most of the effective evangelistic programs reaching families in the community of the church use little or no money. I would give the CP award to the church giving 35%. I am grateful for the church that is reaching more families in their communtity but I don’t see that reducing CP gifts from 8% to 5% had any thing to do with it.
I do agree with you their is a double standard when the convention leaders call for increased cooperative program giving but continually recognize churches with a poor giving record by holding IMB appointment services in these churches.
Ron West
art rogers
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 7:43 pm:
Wow, great food for thought.
Let me add that the debate went back and forth for quite some time, and people were very poigniant in their thoughts.
Yet all were very civil and kind to one another. There were several times when a special point was made to affirm people with whom someone was disagreeing. This is the way it should be.
This is a complex issue and good points on both sides. The chair did a great job of being fair and giving the Exec. Comm. the opportunity to share its mind.
The fallout, though, is that the concerns over CP giving spell trouble for Ronnie Floyd’s presidential hopes.
Anonymous
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 7:48 pm:
Ron,
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your advice. I would like to know more about those evangelistic programs which use little or no money.
The most cost effective method of reaching the community is for each saved person to reach a lost individual through a personal presentation of the gospel. Ideally, each Christian should desire to bear this kind of fruit. Unfortunately, many churches need additional approaches in their toolbox.
One need not be around a church long to know that a church which has leadership staff responsible for planning, organizing and conducting ministry to families is better poised to make an impact on the community than one which does not have staff leadership. Of course, there are always exceptions.
I appreciate your thoughts but your comments still reveal a subtle “golden calf” attitude toward the CP.
Again, listen to the double standard: You responded, I don’t see how keeping more money in the local church helps reach more people, since the best ministry for reaching people costs nothing. But by following that same line of reasoning, shouldn’t we send less money for missions outside the local church so we can reach more people?
Let me know if this is unfair.
Rob Westbrook
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 8:08 pm:
This is a very interesting discussion, one I’d like to see discussed more. As Art is posting quite often, I’m afraid this might get buried. Hopefully, to keep this particular line going, I’ve started with a post over at my blog:
http://sbctalk.blogspot.com
Hope you don’t mind, Art. I really would like to see this issue addressed more thoroughly.
Rzrbk
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 11:05 pm:
Anonymous,
Thank you for your thoughts and for listening to mine. My point was not necessarily that having money was bad. I just think that reducing cooperative program giving is not the key to reaching families in the community.
My thoughts were the same as yours when you state the most cost effective method of reaching the community is for each saved person to reach a lost individual through a personal presentation of the gospel. When I lived in the U.S. the church I was part of that was most effective evangelistically was one that used Evangelism Explosion and had groups going out several nights a week to every new family that moved into our city of over 400,000 people. The cost was minimal. I admit having a staff person in charge of this program is helpful and that costs money. However, theoretically you could train lay people to do this and also having a staff person may or may not result in an effective evangelism program.
Confession time. I haven’t lived in the U.S. for almost 27 years so you may be more knowledgeable than me about what is needed to reach communities there. I have been a church planter and worked with new churches in outreach programs here. We try to deliberately not use programs that cost money because we don’t want churches dependent on money for their ministry. Of course my salary is paid by the cooperative program but hopefully I will only be involved for a short time and then the church will then be on it’s on.
What I said was that I didn’t see how giving less money to the cooperative program results in reaching more people in your community. If more money is needed, I would try to find some other place to cut back. Hopefully cooperative program money is helping to reach more people even though they may not be in your community.
I am not sure what all is implied about having a “golden calf” attitude toward the cooperative program. I know that remark comes from Adrian Rogers and I think that was one of the worst things he ever said. To compare the cooperative program to a pagan idol is offensive to me. That was used by Adrian and others who were rightly embarrassed by their churches poor record on cooperative program had to find some reason to justify it.
Ron West
Rzrbk
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 11:26 pm:
This post has been removed by the author.
Rzrbk
on Jun 12th, 2006
@ 11:29 pm:
One other comment anonymous. I do not think as I have heard some say that giving to cooperative program and reaching out evangelistically to your community are mutually exclusive. When Richard Jackson was pastor at North Phoenix his church gave $1,000,000 a year to the cooperative program and led the SBC in baptisms with over 1,000 per year for several years. Maybe he should be invited to speak at the pastor’s conference so he could share his knowledge with the pastors today on how to combine cooperative program support and evangelism. Oops! I forgot. He is not a supporter of the resurgence so he is persona non grata.
martyduren
on Jun 13th, 2006
@ 5:34 am:
Art-
I may be the only one who thinks this, but I just don’t think the 10% debate has anything to do with propping up Ronnie Floyd’s candidacy.
The Ad Hoc Committee made their recommendations well before Ronnie was drafted and the folks who didn’t want the 10% language seemed to argue in a way that would have left him out anyway (passionate about CP, increasing percentage, etc).