Merry Christmas from the Palmers

An e-card for you.

Make a Smilebox greeting

25 in 25 Campaign at Southeastern

There's never been a better time to support Southeastern. Learn more at www.sebts.edu/25in25.

25 in 25 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Reclaiming Christmas without Fighing Christmas Wars

For some time in America, the Christmas Season has meant long lines at the mall and the sound of every retailer’s all-time favorite Christmas song, "Ring-a-ding, ding," played by cash registers everywhere. One expert has estimated the average U.S. household will spend $490 on gifts this Christmas — not to mention travel, ham, and pumpkin pie. Saving a buck or two during this time of year has almost become unpatriotic.

Clearly the merchants’ view of Christmas saturates our society and runs counter to an accurate understanding of the holiday’s true meaning.

That has made this season’s hottest debate — "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" —all the more confusing to me. Every November, some evangelicals along with the help of Bill O'Reilly and other media pundits, ramp up a campaign to force corporate America into marketing Christ’s birth.

How quickly we forget Christ’s admonitions regarding the blinding effects of wealth.

The argument of those pushing this issue simply states: If you don’t say "Merry Christmas" in your ads, we won’t shop at your stores. In making their case so virulently, these evangelicals err in at least three ways.

First, the argument seemingly embraces the commercialization of Christmas. No matter how an advertisement proclaims the season, "Buy our stuff," marks the true meaning of their message. The words "Merry Christmas" have the most impact when attached to their true biblical underpinnings — something those filled with the joy of Christ are called to spread. The marketing of "I say Merry Christmas" buttons and bumper stickers is definitively not what Christmas is all about.

Second, the argument seemingly longs for Target, Wal-Mart, and others to champion the cause of our Lord. While that’s an interesting, and perhaps pleasant thought, we must acknowledge Christ commissioned His disciples and His church with promulgating the gospel — not Fortune 500 companies. Wal-Mart’s job is selling milk, eggs, and remote controls at everyday low prices under a bright yellow smiley face.

Third, evangelicals must ask, "Do we lose a Christ-like spirit every time we demand others say ‘Merry Christmas’?" Convincing others of the unique, true, and exclusive gospel message proves challenging enough. We should not impede our efforts to share Christ by being overzealous in shopping only with "Christian" corporations and partnering with TV provocateurs who, at best, spin a blended, and therefore, false gospel.

I recently found myself at odds with a normally like-minded, conservative evangelical when this issue was broached. He was primarily upset that corporations are being intellectually dishonest by not specifically acknowledging "Christmas." His frustration grew from the fact that Lowe’s would be selling zero holiday items in December, if not for a celebration of Christ’s birth. On that point, he is correct. December’s other holidays were elevated, in part, as a response to the importance that Christmas has for many Americans. Nevertheless, even he conceded that instead of storming out to fight in the "war for Christmas," evangelicals should focus on personally demonstrating and speaking the love of Jesus Christ.

In America, Christians have the freedom to share the glorious gift of Jesus and should use it liberally. Thousands of Christians around the globe suffer martyrdom and imprisonment each year for sharing the truth of Christ. Meanwhile in America, we blame Target for our failure to reach those outside of Christianity. Let’s get real.

Fortunately, many evangelical Christians reject the incessant commercialization of Christmas and use this time to reflect on the wonderful event we celebrate each year in late December: Christ’s birth.

Yes, we buy presents for loved ones, but Christmas constitutes something deeper. Evangelicals should assist others in understanding that we give tokens to family and friends in acknowledgement of our joy for the ultimate gift God gave the world. In doing so, these evangelicals show an understanding that Jesus’ birth inextricably points to His life’s purpose: To seek and save that which was lost by means of His death and resurrection for sinners.

This Christmas, let us ignore any retailers’ refrain and refocus on being the Body of Christ. That will demonstrate true obedience to His Great Commission, and lead others to His eternal salvation. I pray you and yours have a very Merry Christmas this holiday season.

You're Naïve, Young, etc.

A second "argument" that has been leveled in refuting my analysis of CP expenditures is that I am one of the following, "young," "naïve," "a boy," and "a young whippersnapper."

I could have allowed these words to serve as a discouragement to me, but I have been heartened by Paul's words of encouragement to Timothy in his church plant. He writes, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Tim 4:12).

While my motives have been questioned, I know my motives well. My heart is clean before God and man with respect to the analysis of CP expenditures that I penned.

To be clear, I was not naïve to assess our CP expenditures in the way that I did. I have a clearly articulated, Biblically-grounded, theological rationale for assessing our CP expenditures.

To date, I am unaware of any substantive challenge to my theological assumptions or the study's conclusions. If you find Hankins's objections to be substantive, I will address them in the days ahead.

I was, however, a bit naïve in one respect. I actually thought people may have considered the substance of what I wrote before they responded to my assessment.

I was naïve to think that the deep disproporionality in our missions investments may cause many baby boomer generation SBC leaders to take a long, introspective look at the status quo. I was naïve to think that proposing a theological rationale for making missions investments could be seen as an overall positive starting point for launching a healthy discussion about the future of CP allocations.

As an aside, there must be an overriding rationale - if not, zero dollars will make it out of the states because all the funds will be spent on the many good things taking place in the states. Why shoot for 50/50 if it is just a number tossed out in 1925? What is the reason for the initial suggestion of 50/50? It is that we have always believed that the nations are as important to God as our immediate neighbors. The per capita analysis demonstrates that we do not really spend our money consistent with our stated belief.

I'm more convinced than ever that we should spend our funds consistent with the missional impulse of Scripture, but I am no longer naïve enough to believe the logical implications of this conviction will take root among many SBC leaders of my father's age.

To be sure, there are a number of exceptions, and this has served as a great encouragement in the midst of some fairly challenging days.

While I had hoped for reasonable, productive conversation, this outcome largely did not come to fruition. Instead, most responses came quickly and, largely, reflected only a surface-level familiarity with the substance of my analysis. (The later responses were much more positive).

One pastor, at the urging of his state director, called me and began to berate me as soon as I said, "Hello." He addressed me "man to boy" and told me just how long he had been teaching the Bible.

After he calmed down and allowed me to explain the substance of my argument, he was ashamed. He realized that I was not saying his church was weak but that local churches are the key to fulfilling the Great Commission.

The conversation turned in a moment, and suddenly the analysis made much more sense.

The road ahead may be rough, but I remain optimistic - perhaps naïvely so . . . perhaps not. Time will tell.

Funding for Seminaries

I am not the first person in the world of Southern Baptist Seminaries who noted the challenges in the way in which we currently fund seminaries.

My intention was not to dramatically grow seminary funding through the CP in writing my study. My hope was (and is) that we might be motivated to look beyond our Jerusalem and Samaria as we invest our missions dollars.

Nevertheless, Dr. Chuck Kelly of New Orleans Baptist Seminary recognized the need for additional seminary funding well before I ever enrolled at Southeastern.

Dr. Kelly is still right on the challenges of seminary funding.

Your "Study" or "Stuh-dee"

There have been a number of "objections" raised in response to my assessment of the current allocation of our Cooperative Program expenditures. In the coming days (perhaps weeks, much going on at the moment), I will address these "objections."

Several have suggested that my "study" is hardly deserving of the name; a few have made sure that I could hear the sarcasm in their voice saying, "stuh-dee" every time they used the word. The assessment is just far too simple to be designated a "study."

I agree.

If you read the FBW article or the narrative I supplied, you know that I said the process was "simply a matter of arithmetic."

My use of the term "study" is not intended to communicate a deep level of statistical analysis - that is not necessary in this case. The surface facts are convincing, compelling, and convicting as they stand.


Call it what you will. The assessment is convicting in part because of its simplicity. We do not need a complex formula or a standardized survey to see how we are doing with what we are already investing for the sake of the Gospel.

The disproportionality in our missions investments is undeniable. It was, and remains, alarming.

Implying that the term "study" is intended to make the analysis sound more complex than it actually is may serve as a nice way to convince people to ignore the facts contained therein, but it is not a real critique.

It is, however, a convenient cover in defense of an indefensible status quo.

Quotable Re-Introduction to Per Capita Analysis

In some e-mails and phone calls, I've been chastised for pursuing a per capita analysis of SBC missions investments domestically and internationally. No one has yet offered a different way to evaluate our investments or clearly articulated their concern with a per capita approach. They do not like it; that much is clear.

Bob Terry perhaps comes the closest to an explanation that makes sense when he writes, "Baptists pay bills with dollars, not percentages," though he writes this in a different context than that discussed here. Nevertheless, norming expenditures on a per capita basis for the purposes of comparison is a routine and widely-accepted statistical approach whether per capita expenditures pay the bills or not.

Furthermore, our theology suggests the approach. If we believe every soul is equal before God and that He wills that none should perish, assessing our missions investments on the basis of how many people we hope to reach in a region is entirely logical.

I was pleased to discover a statement in a article in the Baptist Press (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31410) which essentially affirms the theological suppositions that are the foundation of my assessment of our CP expenditures.

Georgia Baptist Convention Executive Director J. Robert White says this, "In Acts 1:8, Jesus specified four mission fields ... Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the uttermost. As far as we can tell, He gave equal weight to each of those areas" http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31410 (emphasis mine).

Dr. White is correct. His reasoning undergirds my assessment of our current investment of CP dollars. If we have many churches on the ground in the Southeast who are striving to make disciples, where must we invest most of our missions dollars if we are striving for an approximately equal investment in all mission fields? In the places where there are few thriving churches equipped to make disciples both domestically and internationally.

When comparing apples-to-apples (missions investments per capita at home verses abroad), we do not come anywhere near placing equal weight on each mission field. We have invested in our "Jerusalem" and "Judea" far more heavily than in "the ends of the earth" for decades - closing in on a century.

One cannot just look at raw totals and determine whether our investment is approximately equal. While bills are not paid in percentages or per capita expenditures, the money spent must be accounted for in such a way that an appropraite comparison of our investments at home and around the world is possible.

A per capita analysis is an appropriate approach to arrive at a meaninful comparison, unless, of course, our Lord could care less whether we are investing as earnestly abroad as we are at home.

If our Lord does care, and there is clear Scriptural warrant for making such a case, a per capita analysis is a commonly-accepted, logical, and appropriate statistical approach to arriving at something near an apples-to-apples comparison.

For example, the US government tracks the investment of states in public education by looking at what is spent per student within each state. To illustrate, California surely spends more in raw dollars on teaching students than does Rhode Island, but Rhode Island's investment per student may be higher. If this is true, California cannot be said to be the bigger spender on education even though, in raw dollars, they spend more. Both states are paying bills with gross dollars, but Rhode Island is investing more in their students because they spend more for each student in their state.

Likewise, the SBC cannot say it invests more for international missions when the target audience is 6.4 billion internationally but only 341 million domestically. Even if you reduced the 6.4 billion to only the 3.6 billion who have very little to no access to a gospel witness, the SBC would have to invest much more heavily in international missions to have a nearly equal investment in both territories.

It will take more than asking local churches to give more to Lottie Moon to make this happen. This is especially true if state convention leaders count Lottie Moon receipts toward their goal of a 50/50 split (this is more common than I realized). Under this approach, if churches give more to Lottie Moon, the state can then spend more of the regular CP offerings and still come out at a 50/50 split between the state and national conventions. Of course, this approach really nullifies Lottie Moon as a special offering and makes it more of an "offset offering." We'll save that thought for another day.

The point is one offering is not going to reverse what is a systemic challenge. It helps, but it is not enough. It will take a paradigm shift among Baptists in the Southeastern U.S. if we are going to achieve something closer to equality in our missions investments. We will need to give more to the CP, and more of our regular CP giving will need to go to the ends of the earth than stays at home currently - a significant increase in our regular, systematic investments in global missions is what it will take if we desire to at least approximate our Lord's heart in the investment of our missions dollars.

Lord you are able. We beg You to work in our lives, our churches, and our conventions that You will be known as the super-exalted Lord among people out of every tribe, tongue, language, and nation.

Assessing Dr. Terry’s “Facts”

Dr. Terry wrote an op-ed that responded to my study. It can be read here.

First, it should be said that I do not understand how any long-time Southern Baptist can mention the late L. Russ Bush in the context of his proposals for the Southern Baptist Convention without at least acknowledging the great contender he was for the faith within our Convention. How one can blast the co-author of Baptists and the Bible, such a linchpin in the history of the Convention, without even noting Dr. Bush's contributions is bizarre. L. Russ Bush should be a hero of any Christ-exalting Southern Baptist.

Fact check number 1

Terry writes, "It should not be missed that Akin wanted more money for the seminaries, including Southeastern, and he wanted it at the expense of missions and ministries carried on in the various state conventions."

I am sure that Dr. Akin would like more resources for Southeastern, but this is not at all the thrust of his Axioms for a Great Commission Resurgence. Indeed, in the actual address, he declares that if Southeastern must be merged with another seminary or eliminated to make us more effective as a Convention for the gospel that he is willing for that to happen.

Fact check number 2

“The size of the state convention staff has decreased 20 percent in the last 10 years.”

While Dr. Terry would certainly know, his claim misses the point.

Let’s take a look at the distribution of receipts in Alabama for the past 10 years between the state convention and the SBC. The chart below is a little difficult to read. You can view the receipts and percentages for Alabama here as well. Scroll to the bottom to see the past 10 years if you visit the link.

Year CP Reciepts State % SBC %
1999 $ 35,857,235.12 57.7 42.3
2000 $ 37,444,267.21 57.7 42.3
2001 $ 38,675,161.00 57.7 42.3
2002 $ 39,344,546.00 57.7 42.3
2003 $ 40,567,575.61 57.7 42.3
2004 $ 40,835,283.00 57.04 42.96
2005 $ 41,140,217.00 57.71 42.29
2006 $ 42,633,104.00 56.70 43.30
2007 $ 44,115,402.00 56.13 43.87
2008 $ 44,983,974.00 58.02 41.98

To be sure, Alabama does better than many states in the south. They have not, however, moved a greater proportion of receipts out of the state in recent years.

Alabama’s contribution to the SBC national (not inclusive of special offerings Annie & Lottie) has not increased over the past two years. Gross receipts are 20 percent higher today than they were 10 years ago.

I wonder how the monies that were used to pay those 20 percent of state convention personnel are now used. They are not being sent to the SBC national.

Shedding positions while still spending money in state will not help us plant thriving churches to the ends of the earth.

Fact check number 3

Terry writes, “Our leaders are God-called ministers, not “bureaucrats.’”

This is a false dichotomy. Our leaders are not either God-called or bureaucrats. They are God-called bureaucrats. There’s nothing wrong with being a bureaucrat/administrator/leader for the glory of God.

As I write in my study, the vast majority of the men and women working in state conventions surely do so from a genuine heart for the Lord. The question is not about the motives of state convention personnel but about whether we are presently deploying our resources in a maximally effective way. Could God be calling some state bureaucrats to serve Him in another way so that more resources may go for establishing thriving churches among the nations? Psalm 67 suggests this is precisely right.

Fact check 4

Terry writes, “Even though Palmer is now backing off his use of the word “skimming,” the charge that state conventions are somehow breaking faith with their ministry partners regarding the CP is a serious charge.”

I am not backing off, I am apologizing and clarifying and have done so publicly in the Florida Baptist Witness. A link to the apology and clarification would have been appropriate. Fraud and “breaking faith” were never in view in my study.

While I should have chosen a better word than skim (and have, therefore, revised the study), the original study in its entirety should have been sufficient to clarify that a charge of “fraud” was not in view.

I write, “I do not wish to malign the men and women currently serving in state conventions or to impugn their motives.” If I had reason to believe people were being fraudulent, I would have been right to question motives. I did not believe that, and I did not intend to convey that meaning.

Fraud was never in my mind.

Better allocating God’s resources along with a theological rationale for appropriating those resources was in my mind, and it still is.

Fact check 5

Terry writes, “Churches decide what portion of their undesignated receipts they will share for missions outside their local area. Those funds are channeled through state convention offices, and in annual session, messengers from the contributing churches decide what portion of the funds received by the state convention will be used for missions in the state and what portion will be forwarded to national and worldwide missions causes through the SBC.

Messengers to the SBC annual meeting then decide how those funds will be used for missions and ministry causes.

It is a clearly delineated and open system. There is no fraud or skimming as Palmer charged.”

That I am keenly aware of this delineated and open system is clear when I make my recommendations. The first sentence in my recommendations reads, “First, we must vote at our state conventions.”

Fact check 6

Terry writes, “It also should be remembered that in 1925, when the SBC first urged a 50–50 split of CP funds, the total included special offerings as well. . . . Using the original standard, Alabama Baptists long ago surpassed the 50–50 goal.”

Is the way we spend convention money today more beholding to a formula in 1925 or to the need for the gospel to reach the ends of the earth? If it is the former, have we not placed tradition before theology? Status quo before Scripture?

The “original standard” is found in the heart of God not in the founding of the Cooperative Program.

We have been planting and sustaining churches in the Southeast for 85 years through the Cooperative Program. If we’ve been at all successful, should we not endeavor to send a greater proportion of our receipts to reach the countless billions who need to hear the Good News?

Spending 50 percent of proceeds in a state with many thriving churches and 50 percent on a world with few thriving churches is still an inversion of our mandate.

I appreciate the calls and e-mails of encouragement in recent days and I thank you for your fellowship in the gospel. I cannot change anything, but God can turn hearts.

There is a missionary couple I know from Alabama who is waiting to be commissioned as I write - waiting for enough funds to send them. Pray for them; perhaps Alabama will be the state who makes a way for them to go.

Forthcoming

Life is going to be very busy over the next several weeks. I plan to post a comprehensive response to Dr. Hankins's stated objections to my study around mid-October. I apologize for the delay, but family, work, and sermon preparation must come first.

If you are in search of the more comprehensive apology noted in the Florida Baptist Witness, please see this post. Thank you.

Encouragement

The last few days have been challenging. I have been called "young," "naive," "unappreciative," "uncooperative," and a few other things that I'll not type (no cursing, but close).

I have been asked three times, twice with a rather derisive tone, "how old are you?"

I have been addressed "man to boy."

I have been told that the only reason that I conducted a study of the breakdown of CP funds was so I would be mentioned on blogs and twitter. Little did this individual know that I had wanted my numbers to be released anonymously without providing any narrative or commentary. The Florida Baptist Witness, understandably, refused to release an anonymous study, and I decided, on balance, it was better for Southern Baptists in the pew to know how little we are getting to the ends of the earth than to remain silent.

To be sure, much of the angst I've received is due to the way the article on my study concluded. In retrospect, I should have simply said that states spend 2/3 of CP receipts. The study was about how we spend CP dollars relative to our Great Commission mandate. I should have just said that. So, in large part, I'm reaping what I sowed.

Nevertheless, I needed some encouragement.

Today it came.

I received some communication today from people who called to let me know they had no idea the allocation of CP funds was so heavily weighted toward state missions. One person thought the study was "meaningful," "insightful," and "undeniably connected to reality."

I stand behind the study. I believe the Lord is calling Southern Baptists to assess how we allocate CP funds and to begin making some difficult, but necessary changes.

Breaking Down the Southern Baptist Dollar

On average, about 1 cent of every undesignated dollar a Southern Baptist puts in the offering plate goes to support our collective efforts in international missions through the IMB. With the image below, I have tried to put the CP allocation budget in proper perspective. It remains the case that we spend approximately 1/2 of 1/3 of 3/50 of our undesignated offerings to reach the nations through the IMB . . . 1 penny out of every undesignated dollar.

God Has Blessed Us - Why

Psalm 67 (New American Standard Bible)

For the choir director; with stringed instruments. A Psalm. A Song.

1God be gracious to us and bless us,
And cause His face to shine upon us.

Selah.

2That Your way may be known on the earth,
Your salvation among all nations.

3Let the peoples praise You, O God;
Let all the peoples praise You.

4Let the nations be glad and sing for joy;
For You will judge the peoples with uprightness
And guide the nations on the earth.

Selah.

5Let the peoples praise You, O God;
Let all the peoples praise You.

6The earth has yielded its produce;
God, our God, blesses us.

7God blesses us,
That all the ends of the earth may fear Him.

FBW Article - Day 2

Today, a state executive director told me that he had just told 140 pastors that I had called their churches weak. He clearly was misunderstanding and attempting to paraphrase this statement, "conventions exist because thriving local churches do not."

This statement does not suggest that our state conventions are full of weak churches. The statement is not descriptive but proscriptive. It is a proposed theological rationale for conventions.

In short, I was saying just the opposite of what the executive director had thought I was saying. So, please allow me take another stab at this.

To the extent that the Lord has blessed states with thriving churches, they should strive to get more and more funds to places where thriving churches do not exist(both within and without the state). The Lord has been very good to us in the south! We have many thriving churches.

We should rejoice and strive to send and allocate more for the establishment of thriving churches elsewhere.

My statement was inspired by Piper’s now famous dictum, “missions exists because worship does not.” Just as Piper was not saying that churches are not worshipping God. I am not saying that existing churches in the SBC are not thriving.

On the contrary, because there are successful churches in our states, the need to establish thriving churches is proportionately greater outside of our states than within them (particularly in the southern states).

We may have some minor disagreements on the way forward, but I believe we can all agree that the current allocations do not represent our best foot forward and that we can do more both at the church level and the state levels.

My desire is that more of our cooperating be directed at using the resources given by thriving churches for the establishment of more thriving churches. Resources should also be used to help assist churches who are struggling. The focus of the work of conventions should be establishing and maintaining thriving local churches because disciples are still made in local churches. This is true across town and around the world.

So far, no response that I have received to the FBW article has mentioned or interacted with this reality: we spend 1.31/person domestically and .038/person internationally.

Put another way, on average, less than .012 of every dollar given to an SBC church makes it to the nations (the IMB). Surely we are not pleased with the status quo. Surely we cannot ignore this fact at such a time as this. May God help us and give us the way forward.

Initial Thougts on FBW Article

On the whole, today has been a good day. The study of our CP giving was posted for all to read in its entirety. Hopefully many will read the study and not just the article.

In retrospect, I should have simply stated that states "spend" nearly 2/3 of the CP funding they receive. I did not mean to imply unethical or illegal activity. The states spend CP funds with the blessing of the messengers who bother to go and vote. My recommendation is that we change how we vote - that we urge conventions not to spend 2/3 of Southern Baptist's CP giving while billions who live outside our states continue sit in darkness. I called Dr. Hankins this morning and apologized for the unintended connotation of the word and asked for his forgiveness. He agreed, and also pledged to pass this apology along to his peers if my study comes up in conversation.

The other questionable word choice in the document was narcissistic. The response by a few Southern Baptists to Article IX did (and still does) seem to me to be self-serving or inward looking. I should have avoided "narcissistic" and gone with "inward looking." The point of the study is to get us looking where our great, missionary God is looking - to the ends of the earth. Anyhow, another poor word choice for which I would like to apologize - primarily because I had just a few individuals in mind but my study makes it seem like I had more people in view.

As for the claim that my study is "fatuous," "meaningless," and "not connected to reality," I am not sure how to take these critiques. The study is most certainly connected to reality - real money and real humans who have never heard the name of Jesus. It is really true that less than 1.5 cents of every dollar given to an SBC church goes to the IMB. I really have a friend serving with the IMB who is now living with the reality that one of their anticipated team members will not be joining the team. There's nothing more real than that.

Dr. Hankins and I spoke for quite some time. We had a very fruitful conversation. He agrees most states should send more to the SBC national, and he has some good ideas for getting there. He seemed a bit surprized to learn that it was reading his book, One Sacred Effort, that began to inspire me to move beyond my suspicions to conduct this study. He outlined a plan that I hope he will strive to get his other colleagues to sign onto. If he does, he will be my new best friend, though we still have some minor differences on the role of state conventions.

I will respond more comprehensively to the critiques by Dr. Hankins in the days to come.

Thank you for considering the study. Most importantly, I pray God uses it to light a fire in us for His gospel and His glory.

THE MISSIONS INVESTMENT OF SOUTHERN BAPTISTS IN THE US & CANADA COMPARED WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD ON A PER CAPITA BASIS

IMPORTANT BASE-LINE DATA
Total Cooperative Program Allocation Budget for FY 2009 = $205,716,834 (1)
NAMB = $46,882,866 or 22.79 percent of the CP Allocation Budget
IMB = $102,858,417 or 50 percent of the CP Allocation Budget

US & CANADA DOLLARS/PERSON ANALYSIS (NAMB + STATE EXPENDITURES)

Money being spent Source
$ 365,718,816 CP receipts (estimated) retained by state conventions
$ 46,882,866 NAMB funds from CP Allocation Budget
$ 58,100,000 NAMB funds from Annie Armstrong in 2008 (2)
$ 470,701,682 Grand Total of Mission Funds US & Canada

Population in Territories Served
340,648,000 Number of people in U.S., US Territories, & Canada (3)

$ 1.382 Mission dollars spent per person in US & Canada

WORLD MISSION DOLLARS/PERSON ANALYSIS (IMB EXPENDITURES)
Money being spent Source
$ 102,858,417 IMB funds from CP Allocation Budget
$ 141,000,000 IMB funds from Lottie Moon (4)
$ 243,858,417 Grand Total

Population in Territories Served
6,431,152,000 World population less US & Canada (5)

$ 0.038 Mission dollars spent per person in the world


Conclusion: We say we care about the nations, but we could be rightly accused of only caring about ourselves. We spend, on average, 36.4 times more money to reach someone living in the US and Canada than we do someone living anywhere else in the world.

1 This represents, on average, about 36 percent of all CP receipts according to One Sacred Effort;the remainder, approximately $365,718,816, is retained by state conventions. This figure is derived by assuming the CP Allocation Budget equals .36 of all CP receipts and then determining what all CP giving would be on that basis and then subtracting the CP allocation budget from the estimate
of all CP receipts to determine approximately how much is retained in the states.
2 http://www.anniearmstrong.com/site/pp.asp?c=8oILLTOqGnF&b=310535
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
4 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=30616
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Wordle of Morris Chapman's "This One Thing I Do"

http://www.wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/972768/Morris_Chapman_-_This_One_Thing_I_Do

title="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do"> src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/972768/Morris_Chapman_-_This_One_Thing_I_Do"
alt="Wordle: Morris Chapman - This One Thing I Do"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

The Gospel in Isaiah 50:10-11

v. 10
Who among you fears the Lord?
Who obeys the voice of His Servant?
Who walks in darkness and has no light?
Let him trust in the name of the Lord and rely upon his God.

v. 11
Look, all you who kindle a fire
Who encircle yourselves with sparks;
Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled -
This you shall have from My hand:
You shall lie down in torment.

Could Isaiah be any clearer about the Lord's offer of salvation and the consequences of rejecting it? Salvation is like a light for those walking in utter darkness. It comes by trusting the Lord and His Servant - the promised Son of God (Gen 3:16).

Rejecting the Servant of God results in a different sort of light - the light of fire. Notice where responsibility for the firey torment lies. The sinner kindles the fire! Rejecting the God's Servant results in the kindling of an eternally raging fire. All who reject God's Son will have eternal punnishment, torment, from the hand of the Lord.

Those are the options. The Gospel is clear in the Old Testament. Seek the Son. Trust the Son. Obey the Son. Live forever in the light of God's salvation . . . or else.

Frustrations of a Youngish Southern Baptist

I am about as Southern Baptist as one can be. I was born in Fort Worth while my father attended Southwestern. My father was partially supported by the Home Mission Board during his first pastorate.

I was saved and immersed in an SBC church. I was called to preach out of an SBC church. I recently graduated from Southeastern. When I join a church, I make sure a minimum of 10 percent of the budget goes to the Cooperative Program.

I remember well the posters my father displayed in the halls of my home church announcing that 95 percent of CP receipts go to support missions and theological education. I was proud of that.

However, along the way, I earned a Master’s of Public Administration and Policy. During the program, I could not deny that the SBC was laden with inefficiencies – built more like a government than a conduit for the gospel.

Nine years later, inefficiencies remain. Some have recognized challenges within the SBC structure(s) and have included this concern in a Great Commission Resurgence Declaration.

The Declaration includes ten articles. Among these articles is the attention-grabbing Article IX.

Article IX reads: We call upon all Southern Baptists, through our valued partnerships of SBC agencies, state conventions/institutions, and Baptist associations to evaluate our Convention structures and priorities so that we can maximize our energy and resources for the health of our local churches and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This commitment recognizes the great strength of our partnership, which has been enabled by the Cooperative Program and enhanced by a belief that we can do more together than we can separately.

Because Article IX challenges us to examine SBC "structures and priorities," some have claimed Article IX is unnecessary because it is non-spiritual. Morris Chapman, for example in his article at sbc.net claims, "Article IX and its commentary stood starkly apart from the other nine articles. It suddenly departed from biblical affirmations . . . " (emphasis added).

Throughout his article, Chapman fails to acknowledge that reorganization, structure, and methodology are inextricably linked to stewardship. Is there an SBC pastor willing to proclaim “stewardship is not a biblical issue?” That is the essence of the claim that Article IX “depart[s] from biblical affirmations.”

Much of Chapman’s rebuttal is based upon this phantom dichotomy of revival versus reorganization or spiritual versus organizational. The statements mount.

"Revival and spiritual growth are the greatest needs in our Convention and our nation. . . . Reorganization is not."

Revival versus reorganization.

"Effective and efficient organization is critical to any corporate endeavor . . . . But revival in our churches and appointing a task force to study Convention structures are not two parts of one whole. They are two separate objectives . . . . to put the two objectives together is like trying to mix oil and water."

Revival versus convention structures.
Two separate objectives.
Oil versus water.

When Chapman asks, "What are our choices?," he offers only two.

“On one hand, calling for a study of the Convention is very likely to create highly-charged polarization. On the other hand, if our people come together under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, Southern Baptists have the potential to mount such a powerful witness to the saving grace of our Lord that God will pour out His blessings upon our efforts.”

On the one hand versus the other hand.
Convention study versus Holy Spirit.

He continues, “Perhaps some have the mistaken notion that if we get our stuff organized first, then God will pour out His blessings. . . . Are there biblical examples . . . that would lead us to expect this? . . .” (emphasis mine).

The Bible provides ample examples. Jethro's advice to Moses in Exodus 18, or the selection of the first deacons in Acts 6 should suffice. Sometimes God does not pour out His Spirit until we are prepared for the change He wants to effect.
But, a deeper problem exists.

If we are poor stewards, we are failing in spiritual matters. If the SBC avoids issues of stewardship when they are raised, we may hinder a fresh anointing of the Spirit.

Article IX is no less spiritual than any other. Christ's rule and reign extend to every corner of life - even Convention life.

Relegating administration and stewardship of dollars given for missions and theological education to the realm of the non-spiritual or less spiritual is to knowingly accept a false dichotomy to protect broken and, yes, “bloated bureaucracies.”

Every ounce of life is to be lived for God’s glory. The SBC cannot accept a false dichotomy (revival v. reorganization) and claim they endeavor to worship God in everything (Col. 3.17).

Chapman urges that we wait “until the time is right.” The time, however, is now.

The more than 3,800 Southern Baptists who have signed a declaration including Article IX, cannot be callously dismissed as those with a “mistaken notion.”

In the not-too-distant past, the SBC faced a real dichotomy. Affirm the veracity and sufficiency of God's Word, or become a denomination doomed to forever doddle in a morass of lifeless liberalism. Today, a phony dichotomy threatens to deter us from continuing the steady advance for the gospel.

It is time to return to the issue of the 95 percent of all CP giving going to the priorities of missions and theological education.

Under the current CP paradigm, funds counted as a church’s CP giving are those which local churches send to their state convention. State conventions meet and determine what portion of receipts to send to the SBC. Ninety-five percent of the dollars sent from the states to the SBC are used for the missions and theological education.

So, how much money are states sending along to the SBC?

The average amount of a local church’s CP giving that makes it to the SBC is around 35 percent (this varies, of course, from state-to-state). Thirty-five cents of every CP dollar reaches the SBC!

Of that 35 percent, 95 percent is spent on missions and theological education.

What are the states doing with all that cash? Many things, many good things, but I wonder if we need to step back and consider why state conventions primarily exist - if we may be able to redeploy some resources invested in good things and invest those resources in great things.

God's missions strategy is the establishment of thriving local churches. Conventions exist because there are places where thriving local churches do not.

Hence, the longer a state convention exists, the less money it should need to keep at home. As more and more healthy churches assume the charge of missions in their communities, more funds can be sent to the SBC to partner with other churches in getting the gospel to the nations (in our country and in others).

Good state conventions will strive to work themselves nearly out of a job; the more successful they are, the less are needed. This does not mean that state conventions will evaporate. They will always have role in terms of church health, benevolence, and etc. However, on the whole, the needs in the state should diminish as conventions accomplish their work, but needs across the nation and around globe remain. When states succeed, more and more funding should go global through the SBC; more money must go to the ends of the earth.

The crisis at the IMB is a crisis in priorities - a crisis fostered, in part, by structures not well-aligned with our Great Commission convictions.

Our collective and biblical concern for the advance of the gospel must inform our structure(s). We should routinely adapt and amend spending and structures in ways that comport with the availability of the gospel around the globe.

Structure and stewardship are essential components of any Great Commission Resurgence.

In states where many solid churches are in place, a 35/65 split in the allocation of CP dollars is inexcusable. Even a 50/50 split would be a weak effort for many conventions in the south.

A 75/25 split in the other direction would make more gospel sense for conventions in which local churches are thriving.

Chapman notes Article IX is devoid of specifics. Perhaps, but someone had to have the courage to get the conversation started. As for specifics, we could begin with the following.

1) We do not need as many regional missionaries in some of our state conventions in the south (they remain vital in some states with more of a frontier status with regard to the proliferation and health of their churches). Don't fire them; just don't rehire when they retire. Everything we do must be done with the grace of Christ.

2) We do not need church plants right next to healthy churches while we have missionaries waiting to hear if they can be deployed.

3) There is significant overlap in the work of local associations, state conventions, and NAMB; this needs to be remedied.

4) We do not need oversized, centrally-located state convention headquarters to accomodate a redundant personnel structure.

5) We do not need a national meeting every year. In the early days, it was once every three years and then once every two.

Chapman notes matter-of-factly that CP funding is down because local church giving is down. He’s right. But that is only 1/2 the story.

Many pastors are frustrated with the largess in their state. This directly impacts CP giving. Churches are finding other ways to be on mission apart from the CP.

Revival and reorganization are not at odds.

God may use a real, radical reorganization undertaken for the sake of the gospel to revive us - to give revival that gets us back to first things - back to Christ and His Great Commission.

Article IX only threatens to divide us if we hide behind false dichotomies.

Our missionary God can use reorganization around gospel priorities to spark revival in the hearts of men and women throughout the SBC.

On June 23, Baptist21, a group of Southern Baptists committed to getting behind the Great Commission Resurgence will host a panel discussion entitled, "Honor the Past, Forge the Future." I suggest we do exactly that.

If we don’t, we will recall this Convention as one in which we were content to "Honor the Past, and Forget the Future."

That’s the real dichotomy at this year's Convention.

1 Timothy as a "Wordle"

Take the top 100 words in 1 Timothy and represent their frequency by the size of the word, and you get something like this. Thanks to www.wordle.net for making this groovy software availalble for free. See below.

title="Wordle: 1 Timothy"> src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/928675/1_Timothy"
alt="Wordle: 1 Timothy"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

Fuel-efficiency & Your Family

The Obama administration is forcing the automakers to agree to some drastic changes to the efficiency of the cars they produce. There are several side effects of which you should be aware.

1. The cars of the future will be less safe (relatively speaking). Fuel-efficiency means less weight; less weight means less protection. Less protection means more death. Don't believe me? Look up the stats on any Hybrid.

2. The cars of the future will cost more. Obama's own projections say it will cost $600 more per vehicle. The government never projects costs accurately. If you triple that figure, you might be approaching an accurate number. Let's say $2,000 more per vehicle.

3. You won't be able to purchase certain types of vehicles anymore. So, you are a Christian family who takes your faith seriously? You really want 8 kids . . . oh, you believe Genesis applies to you. Wow. Well, SUVs are not available anymore. I guess you can purchase a hybrid 15-passenger van at the corporate rate. . . maybe. Or your family can buy three hybrid cars and link them together with the groovy new Obama band - keeps you all together for the whole trip. (No, there is not really an Obama band).

4. The news will keep reporting on how fast the world is warming in spite of some compelling evidence to the contrary. (Oh, you didn't know that polar ice cap was melting because of volcanic activity under the ice and ocean water? And, you didn't know the cap was freezing at a faster rate on the other side?) Well, that doesn't support the communist agenda of herding everyone into cities and making them walk or take government-run buses wherever they go.

5. Your current SUV or 15-passenger van is going to be valuable. People with families are going to envy you. You'll have a car with power, comfort, and the ability to haul your family. Pamper that SUV . . . you'll never get one like it again. Welcome to the "change" for which America voted.

"Fair-minded debate"

Apparently Obama wants a "fair-minded debate" on abortion (see various news articles on his speech today at Notre Dame).

Bear in mind that everyone who thinks abortion is murder is who he's really talking about. "Go ahead and think it is murder; just don't think of me as a cold-blooded killer." That's what he's asking. Continue to believe what you do about life, but don't let that be communicated in your words, passions, or emotions . . . . Those 40+ million aborted babies that your government has killed with your tax money - don't sweat it.

This is exactly what Satan wants. He wants us to shut up and back down when we have every reason to scream at the top of our lungs, "Stop killing babies - it is murder!"

If Obama wants a "fair-minded debate," let's stick to the facts.

An embryo has its own human DNA. It is marked off as a separate being, separate from mother and father, at the very beginning of its existence. It is either male or female from the beginning. The difference between you and a fetus is time, nutrition, and love. The difference between you and and an aborted fetus is that you were not killed. Science does not undermine faith when it comes to life - it confirms it!

Killing of an innocent is still murder in America. Does Mr. Obama want a "fair-minded debate" about how we regard murderers? Is that what he's proposing? No. He wants deflection of the moral imperatives that he is ignoring to be a President of Death. He has no ethical standard for his position other than the position that there can be no absolute truth.

If he's right . . . can anything be wrong? Why?

This is America folks - the nation where the only sin around is the sin of being a Christian who actually takes his faith seriously.

Interesting Political Facts

"Polls show that the American public is deeply conflicted over abortion and that support has declined steadily over the years. In 1995, roughly 60 percent of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Last month, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, that number stood at 46 percent. A Gallup survey that examined seven decisions early in Mr. Obama’s presidency found that the least popular was the one to overturn the ban on sending tax dollars to organizations that provide abortions overseas." NYT, 5.14.09,On Abortion, Obama Is Drawn Into Debate He Had Hoped to Avoid

Obama wants to avoid the debate not because he's not involved but because he's the most pro-abortion president in our history. If there's no debate he doesn't have to defend his indefensible actions. We've got to get on this people. We cannot let Obama dupe us.

Multi-Site Churches: Questions that Cannot be Avoided

As soon as you become a multi-site church (with no plans for the new site to house an autonomous local church), where does the local church end and Presbyterianism begin?

How far out can a multi-site church extend and still remain a local church.

Should a church go multi-site with a site that is in the back yard of another local church of same denomination which is contending for the gospel? Is this really a good witness to the power of the gospel; to the unity of the body?

Are there principles in Scripture which cannot be overlooked when building a statistics-driven model of church?

Multi-Campus Churches

The number of "multi-site" or "multi-campus" churches seems to be growing rapidly. Just this week I received the copy of a "multi-site plan" for a church located in Southwest Virginia - in a city where there are several solid churches which preach the Gospel.

I've been thinking about "multi-site" Baptist churches for a while, and they give me pause. Initially, I could not put my finger on what bothers me about them. As I've had more time to pray and read, I'm beginning to understand why I have some issues.

My concerns are both theological and practical. In the weeks ahead, I will walk through the "multi-site" plan that I have received, and I will evaluate the document from both theological and practical perspectives.

Now, before you go get your nose out of joint . . . there is a way to "do" "multi-site" churches. Plan from the very beginning to have the congregations who meet in the new sites become new churches with their own elders in time. The churches who are planting in this way are not those who are frustrating me.

I will be writing about Baptist churches who are placing the franchising of a church brand above the Gospel and the fellowship of the body of Christ. Stay tuned.

And, if you have a particular question you want me to consider, please comment or e-mail, and I'll try to work it into a future post.

Plan B is No Plan at All

While watching a little TV and working on a paper, a commercial for "Plan B" came on the TV. It's claims were amazing. If your birth control failed you - condom broke, forgot to take a pill, or whatever else - just take some "Plan B."

And, don't worry, it will not cause an abortion the commercial assures you.

Unless, of course, you bother to read the fine print, and you happen to believe that human life begins at the moment of conception - the moment the embryo has all the chromosomes necessary to be identified as human.

Read for yourself from their "Patient Pamphlet" available here, or just take my word for it.

The pamphlet states, "Plan B® contains a dose of the hormone levonorgestrel that is higher than in a single birth control pill. Levonorgestrel has been used in birth control pills for over 35 years. Plan B® works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B® will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus. The pregnancy will continue."

Did you catch that? Plan B has redefined pregnancy. For them, a woman is not pregnant from the moment of conception but from the moment of implantation. Therefore, their drug does not cause an abortion. If abortion only means killing an embryo after it is implanted, they are accurate. However, if abortion includes killing an embryo before it is implanted, Plan B does cause abortion. It is all a matter of who gets to define the terms.

Christians know and DNA evidence confirms that human life begins at conception.

Plan B does not call what their drug does "abortion."

Abortion or not, it is still murder.

Interestingly enough, virtually all birth control pills on the market do the same thing from time-to-time. While it is not the first-line defense, the pill does prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg - a boy or a girl whom God allowed to be brought into being - if only for a few days before the drug takes the life we had thought it was impossible for the pill to take.

How do you feel about "PlanB" now? How about the pill?

Can we keep on taking the pill as Christian couples on the one hand while scolding Obama for allowing experimentation with human embryos on the other?

Discuss.

Christians and the White House's Culture of Death

Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

Let us not be negligent in reminding the people we worship with each week that elections have consequences. In this case, the election has had deadly and conscious-debilitating consequences. Obama has already 1) provided tax-payer funding for agencies that administer abortions around the world, 2) removed protections for medical professionals who object to performing abortions on moral grounds, and, 3) on Monday, he will begin funding the killing of human embryos (embryos are human, they have all their chromosomes just like you do) for the harvesting of stem cells.

Has your pastor been keeping you up to speed on the culture of death that is emanating from the White House? If not, press the issue with him.

Where are the pastors who gave Obama a forum with evangelicals? Where is Rick Warren? Where is T. D. Jakes? Why are they not demanding a meeting with President Obama to discuss these terrible measures? Why are black pastors not calling Obama out on an issue which takes so many African-American lives each year? Where are they now?

We cannot make these pastors give words to their faith, but we can give words to ours. This is cause for outrage that gets expressed to our brothers and sisters in Christ. This is not "bringing politics to church;" this is government-sanctioned; tax-payer-funded murder, and we are duty-bound to oppose it at every turn. Will you remind your Sunday School class/small group/etc. to both pray for a change of heart in our President, to oppose his policies of death, and to vote for life in every election?

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself (Ezekiel 3:17 - 19).

That Giant Flushing Sound

That giant flushing sound that you hear is the "recovery" money being thrown down the toilet to fix up public housing, get rid of lead paint, and install green technologies in public housing as well. So much for creating long-term jobs with the money that the Democrats are stealing from our children and grandchildren.

How much are we spending on this?

Read for yourself from Obama's website.

"The money opened up today includes:
$3 billion to develop, finance, and modernize public housing; $255 million for Native American and Native Hawaiian Housing; nearly $100 million for lead hazard reduction; $2.25 billion to kick-start the production of stalled affordable rental housing projects under the Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP); $2 billion to undertake much-needed project improvements to maintain the quality of critical affordable housing; $1 billion to rehabilitate affordable housing and improve key public facilities under the Community Development Block Grant Program; $1.5 billion to reduce homelessness, and prevent it among those facing a sudden economic crisis; and a temporary increase to the loan limits of mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)."

The lunacy has just begun.