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.
No comments:
Post a Comment