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.
No comments:
Post a Comment