Comments on: Aspect 7(b): A Mission Based on Local Church Initiative and Supplemented by Entities and Associations (NAMB, state conventions, ERLC, local associations)

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:08:16 +0000

I must confess that I am one of those disillusioned young pastors who loves and serves as senior pastor in a SBC church. I have met with my congregational leaders and told them the truth about how money is being spent through our association and through our state and national convention. Dr. Akin said himself “If our folks in the pew knew how much of their giving stayed in there state they would revolt and call for a revolution”. I believe Dr. Akin is right in this matter and to take it a step further for us as pastors not to tell our congregations how their giving is being spent is a lie.
From the early years of my salvation till this very day I hear compassionate pleas from true servants of God to their people to tithe their incomes because there are so many missionaries who can not go to their mission fields due to lack of funding. Missions are why people give. My eyes were opened several years ago when I attended my first state convention as a pastor and learned that not even half of our monies make it to the mission field. I also learned that the term “Mission field” has become a relative term determined by who ever is seeking to receive monies from the state. I learned from a former state convention president that several of our SBC institutions that receive state monies receive annuities to support them and they do not need a dime but still take the money.
I can not speak for all of our SBC schools but I can tell you that I do not want our money supporting the SBC School I attended in my state. All I heard when I surrendered to the Ministry was you have to go to this SBC school. This school is the best in the world to give you an SBC education. I went and was devastated. I spent a year and a half at this school and had 2 professors who claimed they were Southern Baptist and the rest were from all across the board denominationally. You would not believe what was being taught at this school. The school built a multi million dollar football stadium and expanded its sports complex while I was there. They offered full and partial scholarships to athletes who were not and did not plan on becoming Christians while preacher boys were working two jobs to pay their way through.
I have two pastors in my area that are trying to start churches to spread the Gospel of Christ and they have to raise much of their own support while our schools are building football stadiums, lunch rooms and adorning their campuses with statues of Jesus declaring in our states SBC paper they have had record enrollment this year. I refuse to be that irresponsible with Gods money and I refuse to sweep the fact that it is taking place under the rug to my congregation. I will not lie to the people God has brought me here to serve.
This is what the leadership and I have decided to do:
1. Cut state and associational giving to 2% each. (Subject to change soon)
2. Send 3.25% directly to IMB and NAMB
3. Send 3% directly to the 2 pastors that are starting churches in our area
4. Send 200 dollars a month directly to a church that is struggling to stay open
5. Spend 1.5% on Samaritan purse shoe boxes (1-7 who receive a box receive Christ)
6. We have a Jerusalem fund that is used for mission projects with-in a 50 mile radius of the church.
7. We are actively involved supporting missionaries financially as well as hands on in several countries.
I have been told by several pastors I love that because of our giving I probably would not be asked to serve on any state or associational committees. I am thankful for their concern but just the same God did not call me to be politician he called me to preach His truth. I do not have to be known as a pastor of a 10% or higher church. My desire is to make Him known.
We as leaders of this church feel that we are using Gods money in the most responsible ways, evaluating yearly each line item in our budget to see that the money spent is reaching the most people for the Lord. Please show me where this is wrong. I believe that as a pastor I will be held accountable for where Gods money is sent. I can no longer feel that I am being a good steward of Gods money by blindly sending it to one location and hoping things are going to work out eventually. But if or when things do change I will support the CP with ever ounce of effort that I can.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:53:57 +0000

Tim,
Once again neither of your comments make sense in light of what has already been said. I would leave it alone, but since you are again making untrue assertions, I will respond one last time.

First, I have no agenda. I am merely pointing out what you have said about other comments and then comparing it with what actually has been said in those comments. That does not sound like an agenda to me.

Second, I am very confused by your assertion that you hope I choose to be part of the SBC. Seeing as I am already a part of it, I am not sure what this means.

I would suggest one last time that if you choose to continue to comment on this blog, you do so in a way that does not misrepresent what others have said and does not make bald assertions that have no basis in fact.

Matt

By: A Humble Blog Reader

A Humble Blog Reader — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:02:44 +0000

Matt,

Thank you.

By: Roger K. Simpson

Roger K. Simpson — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:45:19 +0000

Dr Finn:

You have nailed it: . . “It is all about what churches want”

The problem is in reconciling these two facts:

1. Virtually all of the things that the state conventions do are (or were — at some time maybe in the distant past) things that churches asked for. This includes campgrounds, help with evangelism, schools and universities, campus ministries, childrens homes, setting up annuities for retirement funds for pastors, senior citizens homes, and disaster relief.

2. Very few people in the pews realize that such a tiny portion of their giving actually goes to either the NAMB or IMB.

Solving this problem is not simple. I believe the task force assumes that the guys in the pews will rise up from the grassroots and demand that state conventions trim the percentage of CP funds they keep. However, at the same time I don’t think the idea of spinning off or shutting down ministries — now operated by the states — is going to pass muster with the guys in the pew. There is not enough low hanging fruit at the state level that can be cut away to solve the funding problem at the IMB.

I predict that the solution will be a mixture of:

(a) churches giving more to CP and
(b) state conventions making marginal adjustments to boost the percentage they send to Nashville

Part (a) involves:
(1) individuals giving more to their churches (tithing)
and
(2)churches sending a greater percentage of their undesignated offerings to CP.

I think at least 70% [probably 80% to 90%] of the action is in part (a) with the local churches — not with the state conventions.

By: Tim Rogers

Tim Rogers — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:53:52 +0000

Matt,

Obviously you have an agenda to place me in a category that is not either astute enough to read or you want me to be categorized as one that causes contention. Because this conversation is not healthy for either of us, I will choose to back out.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving. Praying one day you will see your way clear to be part of the SBC.

Blessings,
Tim

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:09:56 +0000

Tim,
Either you do not understand the comments that were made or intentionally misrepresented them.

First, Dr. Finn noted that he had three ministries that he personally hoped would have a future. In your first comment you asked if Dr. Finn would “only” want these to continue. This was neither implied nor stated in Dr. Finn’s comments.

Second, you addressed *Wes’s* comment (i.e. not Walter’s, which is the one you brought up in the last comment), and you chide Dr. Ashford for his commendation of Wes’ comment and assert that he seems “to admonish a combining of associations with state conventions into one SBC.” You then use the word “catholicize” to characterize this. Brother, none of what you state is even remotely in Wes’ comments. His comment notes a desire to see associations function in a healthy way, and to put church planting in the hands of *local autonomous churches*. That is about as far from what you assert they say as possible.

Third, if you have a problem with Walter’s comment, fine. All Dr. Ashford said to him was that it was great to hear from him and that he was glad he *contributed* to the conversation. Nothing was said in agreement or disagreement, i.e. there was no hint of an “atta boy”. Again, a far cry from what you assert in your first comment.

And so I must conclude that either a) you did not read his comment, b) you did not read it carefully, or c) you intentionally misrepresented it. I sincerely hope it is not the last of these, and so I chose to advise you to read the comments more carefully.

Matt

By: Tim Rogers

Tim Rogers — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:36:31 +0000

Matt,

Unless you can tell me what I have misread, please do not express your opinion.

Dr. Finn said there were three things that state conventions should maintain. I am not the only one that pointed that out, look at Roger Simpson’s response. Certainly state conventions do more than just three things. Dr. Ashford told Walter Price he had made a positive contribution to this post. Walter Price’s statement was that three autonomous agencies would not be supported by younger pastors. Three autonomous agencies is the polity of Baptists. Associations were around before national denominations, as well as state conventions. I do not believe Southern Baptist are ready to form one denomination that will take the place of autonomous associations and state conventions.

So, Matt, it seems that I am reading the comments. I do encourage you to heed your own advice.

Blessings,
Tim

By: Paul Stohler

Paul Stohler — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:55:19 +0000

I’m pretty sure that I would fall into the young pastor category at 29 years if age. I am in my first pastorate and have the blessing of a SBC/CP helped seminary degree. My question is, who are these “younger pastors” we keep reading about that are painted with such broad strokes? Personally, I do not find myself in agreeance with the suggestions made about younger pastors in these articles. Would we even be having these “younger pastor” problems if the Acts 29 “network” wasn’t so cool and trendy? Isn’t this really the Jones’ we are trying to keep up with to stay hip and cool?

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:23:49 +0000

Tim,
You should actually read the comments before responding to them. None of your assertions are found anywhere in the comments to which you are responding.

Matt

By: Tim Rogers

Tim Rogers — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:32:13 +0000

Dr. Finn,

Surely you do not believe that state conventions do only education, children home ministries, and disaster relief. What about the Evangelism Department? Do you believe we should do away with an entire division that specializes in church revitalization?

Dr. Ashford,

With your “atta boy” to Brother Wesley you seem to admonish a combining of associations with state conventions into one SBC. Brother, if we get to that point we have lost the autonomous nature of what baptist have consistently stood for. I believe if you will check with your colleague, Dr. Finn, he would probably encourage you in the fact that the autonomy of the local church, associations, and state conventions is what has kept baptist from becoming catholicized (if that is a word) :) in our polity.

Blessings,
Tim