When I look at Marty Duren I realize that I can cooperate with those of a different “look”:-)It does not hurt so bad if you do not look at the shoes.

Surely, if I can do that I can cooperate with a PPL guy or two. There really are not that many anyway.

cb

That you still don’t know how you voted is not something you want to broadcast… :) Besides, you voted the opposite of me, so why would I trick you into voting against me? Unless I’m double minded. No I’m not. Maybe I am… ;)

Geoff,

I completely understand what you are saying about the disenfranchisement that you and your church has experienced. That your situation represents 10% of the Commonwealth’s churches shocks me a little. I didn’t think there were that many, but it shows how fast this problem is growing when you have that many churches in a state like KY that aren’t associated in traditional local association.

Paul Littleton recently mentioned that there is a growing trend of churches that associate outside of geographic boundaries, but along theological, ministry style or some other line which they have in common. That may be a solution. I think we are going to have to do that or the CP as a whole is going to go down the tubes.

If we go back to just point of contact giving, we take a step backward, in my opinion. Not just historically, but practically. However, the CP/church planting/traditional only issue must be addressed.

This is still the same issue as the other things under discussion. Will we cooperate with those who are slightly different than us or not? All the differences over which we are pushing and pulling come down to that question.

If we won’t cooperate, there will be no need for “the world’s largest Protestant denomination,” and we will go the way of the Dodo bird.

What say you?

But I am at a point where I do not feel I can lead our people to increase CP giving because we are so “cut out” of the process of SBC life. We started our church without any denominational support, yet we have given around 3-4% to CP each year. Then, we discovered that some new churches had been planted in our area with direct CP money, yet none were giving … and still aren’t. It just didn’t compute for me. Furthermore, I’ve been doing a little bit of research into the KBC. According to the 2005 Annual (last copy I have) there were 225 churches listed in the associational section under the humiliating title of “Miscellaneous.” (We are the undefined, non-associational churches … the step-children, the ones that the most state conventions don’t know what to do with … but they still love our CP money.) As near as I could tell, this 225 (out of 2516) churches added up to over 28,000 church members and 3/4 million dollars given toward the CP … yet the entire leadership structure in the convention is built upon memberships in local associations. There are a few “at-large” positions on the state mission board, but three of those were filled by DOM’S! We are part of the almost 10% of Baptists in our state who are, literally and figuratively, “out of the loop.” I believe that this is a HUGE crisis in SBC life that no one is talking about.

Add to that our all of the NAMB / Bob Reccord stuff and our own rejection for fellowship by our local association, and you come up with a very tough “case” for me, as pastor, to make for sending anyone beyond this local church any more money. Frankly, I cannot morally lead the church to take such a step right now.

But we are entering a 5-year partnership to plant churches among an unreached people group in South America, and our people are willing to invest many, many thousands of dollars in mobilizing our volunteers and supporting that particular work. Point-of-contact giving. I can’t help but think that the present and coming generations will be more focused in this way in the near future. I think it bodes ill for the traditional CP. People simply need to better see where their giving is being spent. I don’t know if it’s right or wrong … it just “is.”

Geoff,

Dude, you missed the hullabaloo last year about this during the run up to the Convention and even during the Convention. There was some language in an Ex. Com. motion that had a standard of seeking people whose churches gave 10% or more. This was taken out – I voted for the language, but Marty voted for it to be removed – but I had to tell him when to vote. :)

The problem was that two of our Presidential candidates (“insiders”) gave very little, percentage-wise, to the CP. To me, it seemed that their candidacy was about who they knew and not their commitment to the SBC. Ronnie Floyd’s church gave a paltry .27% to the CP and this did not even cover the matching funds that the church received back from the state on staff annuities. In essence, the smaller churches were paying his mega church for the privilege of association. I felt that the President of the SBC ought to lead his church to do more than take money from the SBC’s Cooperative Program.

So I am in favor of that thing. Trust me, that standard tends to weed out a lot of guys who are getting along on who they know.

Also, and as a result, I directly influenced our church to give 10% (up from 8% last year) of a dramatically increased budget to the CP. Because we increased both percentage and the overall budget, our CP giving is at least 150% of what it was last year – I think it is even more than that, actually. On top of that, we are giving 2% to our local Association and various flat amounts to different ministries around Tulsa and Oklahoma.

I can honestly say that my leadership in this area defined our giving plans. It wasn’t just me, but it started with me, so I know it can be done.

Not that I am seeking office, Kevin, though thanks for the encouragement.

I do know what you are saying about the church giving, though, Geoff. When I went to FBC, Russellville in 1990, they were giving 20% and had been for many years. In dealing with a growing ministry but an aging congregation, they had to cut that number down to 15% – you would have thought the Finance Committee had cut the heart out of Missions.

I didn’t do it there, but I inherited a great track record, so it would not be exactly fair for me, or the Senior Pastor there, to take credit for it. But neither did either of us try to cut it, so there’s that.

Just a few thoughts to further discussion. ;)

But Art, did you notice one of the key characteristics that is considered? “Whether the candidate’s home church has regularly given a substantial percentage of its undesignated receipts through the Cooperative program…”

This really “sticks in my craw.” Why is this an issue for nominations, trusteeships, etc… but apparently not an issue when it comes to nominating (the right) men for SBC president?

Many of our churches have been giving 12,13, 0r 15% to CP since the first world war (or earlier) … it has nothing to do with the current pastor of these churches … who invariably are recycled and nominated to such posts. I think this approach completely cuts younger, new-church pastors out of the process because we are too busy just trying to pay the bills to make sure we give a “substantial percentage” to the Cooperative Program.

I can’t help but think that CP giving would go up if other, newer voices are added to the leadership … rather than having to “make it to the show” and then “buy our way in” first.