Easter and Legacy: A Tribute to My Dad

If my math is correct, tomorrow marks the 35th Easter in a row during which my dad will preach a sermon(s). It is also his last Easter sermon at the church I still call "my home church" -- the church where I met my bride and learned to pray and serve with men twice my age.

It is likely that my dad is experiencing a world of mixed emotions tonight as he does his final walk through his selected Easter text. I am sure Satan would want him to be filled with doubts and a litany of "shoulda, coulda, wish-I-wouldas."

But Satan is a liar, and Easter is the proof.

Satan slithers into the Garden and urges us to believe God is withholding the good life from us. The Son of God leaves behind the good life, willingly goes to the cross to give us His righteousness, and is raised again to give us His life.

Over the last 35 years, my dad has served the church in remarkable ways. His name will never be mentioned from the platform at the SBC, but I suspect He will have more than enough crowns to lay at Jesus' feet.

Though my dad's last Easter sermon as a lead pastor comes tomorrow, his legacy, to the extent he has pointed people to Jesus, endures forever. And, he has done so remarkably well.  As my dad nears this final sermon, I would like to remind him (and us) that Easter is not merely our only hope but also our certain hope. I hope to encourage him with four ways he has lived out the resurrection life and proven to me and to many who love him that Christ is risen!

1. My father has embraced the counterintuitive wisdom of God, the humility of our Savior. After 35 years of ministry, it sometimes amazes me how few people realize my father is an incredibly brilliant man. My dad is smarter than most men I know - including many PhDs. If you doubt this, I defy you beat him in a game of Trivial Pursuit or to beat his GRE score from an exam taken when he was 40 years of age. Most know him as the happy and highly-gregarious encourager God has gifted him to be, but few realize he is also wicked smart.

This is by design. Somewhere along the way, my dad must have decided he would rather be who God has made him to be in Christ and allow sophisticated people to underestimate and malign him than to limit his overall effectiveness in the Kingdom of God by insisting people also know him as "smart."

In Christ, my dad learned humility. He learned the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Cor 1:25), and he was just "foolish" enough to trust the message of the cross more than his intellect. He learned to prefer brokenness to brilliance. More than any methodology or strategy, this convictional approach to leading and pastoring is the "secret sauce" to my father's success in ministry.

2. My dad genuinely loves people with the self-sacrificing love of God. For all of his interests in "church growth," I have never known him to treat one person -- not one -- as "just a number." Methods and approaches come and go, but none can replace genuine love for "all the flock" (Acts 20:28).

The role of the pastor as one who feeds the flock by being with the flock is one my father takes seriously. The nearness of Christ to His people is to be communicated by the nearness of the undershepherd to the local flock. My dad understands this and considers the responsibilities of being a "pastor" to be a divine privilege. Consider these examples.

• One of my earliest memories of my dad is of him counseling a family whose 14-year-old daughter was killed in a vicious car accident. I became weary of him being gone so much, so he took me with him. I am so glad he did. I saw my dad bring the healing hope of the resurrection to an awful situation. To my 8-year-old eyes, it seemed like my dad had actually become Jesus. Everyone he saw and everyone he touched seemed to be healed of their heartache. I don't remember what he said, but I will never forget the unmistakable transformation on their faces.
• I saw my father leave family vacations early to lead families through the grieving process and to preach the funeral.
• I saw my father loan cars to struggling church members on numerous occasions.
• I saw my dad, early in ministry, preach every Sunday, run the youth ministry, plan and drive the bus for all church events, and essentially work for 70+ hours/week -- not because he was a workaholic, but because he was desperate to help people know Jesus even when there was no one else to share the load.
• I saw my father drive for hours to share the gospel with a church member's lost father.
• I saw my dad share the gospel with a drug addict, stick with him through relapses, give him hope by offering him a job painting our house, and then take him to Charlottesville routinely during the last months of his life. My dad could have delegated this. Many leadership gurus would say he should have. The gospel said otherwise.

3. My dad refused to let the world rob the church of confidence in the Scriptures which reveal to us the Risen Lord Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation for all peoples. Every good preacher will readily admit some sermons and some Sundays are better than others. Sometimes, things just do not go as planned. But, you will not find in 35 years of material one instance in which my dad preaches another gospel. You will never hear him preach salvation by works or reduce the gospel to only the "nice" saying of Jesus. Quite the contrary, you will always get a robust defense of the faith once-and-for-all delivered to the saints and an exhortation to trust and honor Jesus in all things no matter the cost.

4. My dad is always willing to do whatever it takes to honor Christ. For years, a large sign in the sanctuary at Green Ridge Baptist read, "Whatever it takes." That's my dad. Whatever it takes to be faithful to his calling. . . whatever it takes to point people to Jesus. . . whatever it takes to show people the indescribable love of God in Christ . . . whatever it takes to keep the people of God pursuing their Risen King.

My dad's ministry has been characterized by doing whatever it takes, and he is doing it again now. It cannot be easy to transition to a new day of ministry, but dad perceives that is what God would have him to do for the good of His church. Once more, dad is laying down his life in order that others might know that Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. Once more, dad is doing whatever it takes to point people to Jesus, trusting that Easter makes all the difference.

Dad, I love you. Christ is risen.

Successful Fundraising Means Raising the Right Money

In the previous posts, we have seen that successful fundraising demands a culture which consistently seeks and creates opportunities to further fulfill the mission through the involvement of qualified prospects. But, a culture which prizes private giving and wholeheartedly engages prospective donors are not all that is required.

The right sort of gifts are also needed.

Yes, successful fundraising obviously requires the acquisition of gifts, but gifts are not enough. Truly successful fundraising is fueled not merely by gifts but the right sort of gifts.

Raising the right sort of gifts means securing gifts that align both with the donor's heart and the institution's mission. Because securing any gift can prove challenging, the temptation for the fundraiser who consistently faces the pressure to "beat last year" is to simply accept a gift and trust the institution will "find a way to make it work" even when the purpose is not well-suited to the organization or the donor wishes to place unreasonable/unworkable restrictions on the gift. This is unwise, and organizations should commend fundraisers who demonstrate a consistent conscientiousness in this regard -- even when it means forfeiting a gift.

Gifts which are not the right sort of gifts are those which divert from the institution's mission or create financial and administrative burdens that exceed the benefit of the gift. A good example in higher education is a scholarship which comes with so many restrictions that it can seldom be used. If a donor's desire is to help students, a scholarship agreement must be written broadly enough to ensure students will consistently meet the scholarship criteria. It is the fundraiser's job to help a donor understand how to structure a gift for maximum impact. Good stewardship demands nothing less.

In other words, gifts of equal amounts do not necessarily have an equal impact, and some gifts can be impact-diluting or even impact-diverting over the long term. The conscientious fundraiser understands this and seeks gifts the organization can deploy in a way that consistently fulfills the mission and honors both God and the giver.

This does not mean gifts to fund new buildings or new initiatives should be avoided. It simply means the true costs involved should be calculated and included as a part of the overall strategy. For example, the addition of a new building comes with new recurring expenses for cleaning, power, water, climate control, information technologies, and maintenance. A new academic program often comes with new expectations for the availability of library resources. Good gifts come when good questions are asked and answered from the inception of any new initiative.

Both donors and institutions often fall prey to the ills of "chronological snobbery" wherein "newer" is simply assumed to be better. To be sure, newer can be better but only to the extent that "the newer" better deploys and extends that which is timeless -- the mission of the organization.

If the organization's mission is the right mission, and the organization has demonstrated a consistent ability to fulfill that mission, what is needed is not new, trendy, or innovative. What is needed is significantly greater support for that which is tested, tried, and true.

This means, in the case of gospel-centered institutions functioning with high-levels of financial and confessional integrity and accountability, unrestricted gifts are absolutely vital and wise because they have the greatest potential for impacting eternity over the long term. Such gifts provide an opportunity for the organization to quickly overcome unforeseen challenges and seize new opportunities in an ever-changing world to deliver the sort of Kingdom-extending impact the donor desires and God delights to give.

Raising the right sort of money is challenging primarily because it requires time and intentionality in building personal relationships predicated on trust. But, the time is worth the effort because it results in mission-focused, mission-extending gifts which make maximal impact.

Successful fundraising then means raising enough of the right money. And the right money is that which:

1) Directly supports the institution in fulfilling her mission, and

2) Does not come with unreasonable restrictions, and

3) Is large enough to deliver the anticipated outcome(s), and

4) Does not add new institutional costs without a plan to cover them.

What do you think about these criteria? What would you add?

Successful Fundraising Requires Cultural Saturation

While I desperately hope denominational support will rebound, I am not optimistic in the near term. Current political and economic trends suggest any recovery, if realized, will be modest, and some governing officials have already signaled their desire to collect more revenues by eliminating the opportunity to itemize charitable contributions.

Even if we were blessed with modest growth in Cooperative Program receipts, support would still fall substantially short of the levels needed to undergird a seminary dedicated to exalting Christ by equipping students well, in part, because CP receipts have not kept pace with inflationary growth since 1990.

Current economic realities are pushing seminaries to think differently about finances. Gone, and likely never to return, are the days when denominational support provides 70+ percent of a seminary's budget. But, we must not passively accept a "new normal" where strong, denominationally-supported seminaries become tuition-driven schools that are no longer affordable for many who seek to be thoroughly equipped for the pursuit of God's call.

A better way to address the troubling funding realities before us is found in the purposeful cultivation of a culture which prizes the work of financial development at every level. Organizations facing declining denominational receipts need scores of successful, saved people who will be interested in, involved with, praying for, and advancing their God-given work. The levels of support needed to secure the future affordability and impact of seminaries demands that most of the people who comprise the seminary be meaningfully involved in the process of cultivating the relationships that allow seminaries to flourish regardless of future economic headwinds.

Identifying the scores of men and women who will stand with us in fulfilling our missions demands the purposeful involvement of virtually everyone in the organization. Financial development is not merely an office; it is a way of life for anyone who has the privilege of serving in an organization on the front lines of fulfilling the Great Commission. The work of identifying financial partners for the ministries entrusted to us does not belong to one person, one office, or even one division. To be sure, someone must coordinate and lead the charge, but the team is comprised of everyone. In tomorrow's thriving organizations, "financial development" is becoming a way of life for everyone who takes part in fulfilling the mission.

Financial development must saturate the cultures of denominationally-supported institutions because gospel-centered organizations understand the dreams and plans that God gives in the pursuit of His mission almost always require financial support. Financial development is not fundamentally about money; it is about mission, and the mission belongs to everyone in the organization.

In organizations that understand the fundamental connection between generosity and our passion for God's mission, events, graduations, conferences, speaking engagements, chapel services, luncheons, and new initiatives involve a deliberate consideration of the potential fundraising possibilities, implications, and applications at the outset. Prospective ministry partners are prayerfully sought and winsomely engaged in every venue possible. Donors' advice and strategic engagement is sought by the organization's leadership team in advance of new initiatives. If the needed conviction, passion, and funding are found lacking, the project is delayed, modified, or dropped depending upon the Spirit's leading through the organization's intentional, structured, and early engagement of prospective financial partners.

One of my colleagues formerly worked in the trust department for a large bank. His managing director wrote "everyone is responsible for sales" on dollar bills and handed them to every employee in the division. His desire was to create a particular sort of culture, a culture that valued sales and helped every employee understand they had a role to play and a stake in the work.

If everyone is responsible for sales when mere money is at stake, how much more ought everyone be responsible for knowing the mission and sharing the institution's story within their circle of influence? The organizations that overcome today's financial headwinds without sacrificing their mission at the altar of skyrocketing tuition will be those that create enthusiastic, friend-raising cultures from top to bottom. Successful fundraising requires everyone.

Successful Fundraising Requires Qualified Prospects

In the introductory post, fundraising success is defined as raising enough of the right money to sustain a Christ-exalting seminary until He comes.

It should go without saying that raising the funds necessary to undergird a seminary or any robust, Kingdom-advancing endeavor requires financial partners in ministry -- real, flesh-and-blood human beings made in the image of God -- but it must nevertheless be said. If I had a dollar for every random name dropped or off-the-wall, raise-money-fast gimmick or event, we would be well on our way to meeting our financial goals for this fiscal year.

Gifts from corporations, corporate foundations, and large charitable foundations are wonderful and can often be significant, but these institutions are not the primary source of charitable giving in the United States. When counting bequests and small family foundations as individuals, more than 90 percent of the billions given each year comes from individuals, and much of that is contributed by a small fraction of all those who give. In other words, major gifts make the major difference, but we will have more on that in a future post.

The importance of individuals for overall charitable giving means most giving is determined and directed by human beings who have minds, passion, interests, and a story. People who make gifts that build, sustain, and transform institutions do not just want to know their gift is used wisely; they want to know the people of the institution using their gift.

A qualified prospect knows much more than what you do and why you exist; a qualified prospect knows who you are. And, you know them. There is a reciprocal and mutually reinforcing knowledge of one another's needs, hopes, and gospel-centered, gospel-driven desires. Those shared and Spirit-led desires in turn drive the organization to pursue her mission with an ever-increasing level of excellence. The story of the organization becomes the story of the donor, and vice versa. This story, all driven by the mission of God in Christ and a profound appreciation for the gospel likewise inspires the prospect to give generously, even sacrificially and with great confidence in the God Who established the organization and Who is providentially at work to inspire the vision and provide the funds sufficient for the task.

The emphasis on qualified prospects is critically important. Having a name on a sheet of paper is generally not enough. Sure, there are those "miraculous" exceptions, but, in general, a person is not a qualified prospect unless they are capable of giving at the level desired and until they enjoy real relationships with the people of the institution. Qualified prospects know, understand, appreciate, and are invited to evaluate the institution's mission as well as her greatest hopes, challenges, opportunities, and needs. Only a qualified prospect can give the "right money."

This is why we talk about "qualified prospects" in our office. A database full of names is not nearly as helpful as a group of men and women who love Christ and understand how your institution connects to the progress of His gospel to the ends of the earth.

Yes, we would be grateful, tremendously and profoundly grateful to God if He sent Tim Tebow, Dan Cathy, Kirk Warner, Steve Green, Hugh Maclellan or any other financially-blessed and faithful Christian our way. And, I often pray that God would open the right doors at the right time for us to establish such relationships and ask for partnerships in the work of equipping students to serve the church and fulfill the Great Commission.

But, we should not expect gifts where there is little or no relationship. Fortunately, the cause of equipping students to serve Christ by reaching the nations in His name should resonate with every Christian, famous or not, wealthy or not. What is needed in our ministries are deep, lifelong relationships which, in time, yield gifts that astound us and glorify Christ both now and forevermore.

While I do hope that God sends you a few surprises along the way, my prayer is that all the people who comprise your organization will get enthusiastically engaged in the work of cultivating deep and lasting relationships with the men and women you already know or could easily get to know. For the most part, these are the people God has given to you who will make the gifts that make the difference. Your institution only has to get to know them.

Fundraising Success at a Denominationally-Supported Seminary - Introduction

I was recently asked to put together a presentation defining "success" in financial development and describing how it can best be achieved. I began by defining success in the more typical ways, e.g., "We seek to increase the amount of annual gifts received by x percent."

However, I quickly found this methodology to be sorely lacking for addressing the fundamentals which must characterize any financial development effort which will yield long-term, institution-sustaining success. Short-term wins can sometimes be had even when fundamentals are poor. However, enduring results do not come without prioritizing the work of cultivating the deep relationships necessary for securing the resources needed to fulfill the institution's mission.

For denominationally-funded institutions of higher education, the last six years have not been kind. Denominational support has declined significantly. In my convention of churches, the Southern Baptist Convention, funding through the Cooperative Program has declined more than $60 million since fiscal year 2007. At last report, receipts for the current fiscal year were approaching a mark ten percent below budgeted expenditures.

Today, my seminary trains 700 more students than she did just ten years ago, and she does it with no more denominational support than she received a decade ago. When considering inflation, the support is significantly less. Yes, you have read correctly. More students. Fewer dollars. The difference has been overcome through tremendous financial leadership and prudent use of cuts in capital expenditures and technology, tuition increases, wage and salary freezes, along with fundraising gains. Many institutions have not been so blessed.

Within the context of denominationally-supported theological education, the need for establishing organizational cultures that joyfully and creatively embrace financial development as essential for long-term viability has never been greater or more apparent.

The trend of cutting cannot continue indefinitely without catastrophic consequences. It is possible to expand while cutting back for a season, but it is mathematically impossible over the long term.

To be sure, institutions of higher education have many challenges and priorities. Funding declines, advances in technology, evolving demographic trends, and a host of other variables constantly contend for the time and attention of higher education's top brass. As such, cultivating a robust financial development presence today that will not provide robust funding gains for several more tomorrows may seem risky or even impossible in today's uncertain funding environment.

Yet, the seminaries that will make the greatest impact ten years from now are the ones who make the right investments today.

Seminaries will never have the Kingdom-extending impact God intends for them to have if they simply pass along accelerating costs to students in the form of debilitating tuition increases.

This is why I am so pleased to serve at Southeastern where keeping tuition as affordable as possible is a stated part of our overall missionary strategy. When students graduate without the burden of educational debt, they often take bolder risks for the sake of Christ and the gospel.

A seminary that does whatever is necessary to be maximally effective in financial development is a seminary that wants to be on the front lines, reaching the ends of the earth by training battle-ready champions for Christ.

So, what is fundraising success?

Success is raising enough of the right money to sustain a Christ-exalting seminary until He comes.

But, how is such success achieved? This is the more challenging question, and it is the subject of the next several posts in which I will share some fundamentals of fundraising success in the hopes that the information and perspective may be helpful to others who are striving to build and sustain institutions that will advance the Kingdom.

How can we live out the truth that "God in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession" (2 Cor 2:14) by building and sustaining institutions that will extend the Kingdom until Christ returns? This is a critical question, and in answering it, nothing less than honoring Christ through our stewardship of the institutions He has entrusted to us is at stake.

Biennial Meetings: Growing Support

I would like to say thank you to Lonnie Wilkey, editor of the Baptist & Reflector (TN Baptist Paper) for his support for biennial meetings. I believe this change would increase participation at both national and state levels and decrease expenses particularly if the states also moved to a biennial schedule and met in alternating years - a win, win at both levels of Convention life.

You may read Lonnie Wilkey's comments on the biennial motion at the end of his article available from http://tnbaptist.org/BRARticle.asp?ID=4357.

A Plea for the Biennial Motion to be Considered

After getting hurriedly referred to the Executive Committee despite my attempt to point out that amendments to the governing documents of the SBC are properly the purview of the messengers of the SBC, I made one last attempt. You may view that attempt here (only the first 2 minutes of the video). Fittingly, this plea was referred to the same committee that recommended that my first motion go to the Executive Committee. As you might imagine, the motion never made it to the floor.

Perhaps it will gain a hearing in Houston in 2013.

This blog continues to receive many "hits" to the articles dealing with biennial meetings, the EC objections, and my responses. If you agree with the idea of moving to a biennial meeting schedule, please let me know by registering your support. If not, please let me know why by commenting. Thank you.

Yes! I Support Biennial Meetings.

To register your support for biennial meetings, please visit http://tinyurl.com/79ugw2u. I will only list your name, church, and location on this page.

Thank you again for enduring all these posts on biennial meetings. I hope they were informative and helpful.

For Christ and the gospel,

Daniel

Biennial Meetings: Saving $10 million, really?!

When I asked the Executive Committee to review the costs and potential savings associated with the annual meeting of the SBC, I asked them to consider everything -- the convention center, the buses, the parking, the hotels, the flights, the car rentals, the meals, the child care, the coffee, the Exhibit Hall, the shipping and erecting of booths, lighting, staging, the publications, the computers, monitors, webcasting, staffing, and anything else that goes into an annual meeting.

According to this article, "the Executive Committee said the change would save several hundred thousands of dollars in years the convention doesn't meet."

I assume that the Executive Committee did not understand my request because I cannot fathom how this statement is accurate unless they are counting only the direct expenditures by the Executive Committee.

Allow me to explain how our Convention of churches approaches and likely exceeds $10 million for its annual meeting. I am intentionally conservative in my estimates below.

Direct Convention Expenses

I do not know a current figure for direct convention expenses by the Executive Committee. I do not have my copy of One Sacred Effort by Brand and Hankins with me this afternoon, but, from memory, I believe they estimated direct convention expenses at $900,000 per year. The book was released in 2005. I suspect direct convention expenses remain near $1 million annually.

Messenger Expenses

There were approximately 7,800 messengers at the SBC in New Orleans. New Orleans is not an inexpensive city. Most convention locations are quite pricey. Even though I overnighted in New Orleans for only two nights (many are there for at least 3 nights), the cost of my travel, food, lodging, and parking was nearly $1,000. Based on my conversations with other messengers, I did very well! Assuming every messenger spent an average of $1,000, Great Commission Baptists spent $7.8+ million last week.

Agency Expenses

"Booth space" in the Exhibit Hall is not inexpensive. Even a modest exhibit filling a 20ft. by 20ft space can cost upwards of $30,000 not counting additional costs to ship, assemble, and staff these booths. Just surveying the Exhibit Hall and doing a little "mental math" suggests that our Convention probably spends at least $1 million on filling the Exhibit Hall.

SBC Convention Math

$1 million + $7.8 million + $1 million = a very conservative $9.8 million

State Conventions

I assume that state convention meetings vary greatly in terms of their overall costs. I suspect that states in the southeastern US naturally spend more than those in the northeast or midwest simply because of the size of space required and the numbers of messengers in attendance. In states like Georgia, Florida, Texas, Alabama, and etc., I am hoping a reasonable and conservative guesstimate of the total convention costs (using the same methodolgy as above) would be approximately $1 million for each state. Other state conventions probably cost less than $50,000.

Based on the very loose (but hopefully conservative!) mental math above, I guesstimate that the average state convention costs at least $325,000 in direct convention expenditures, travel, lodging and etc. Assuming that the 42 state conventions cost an average of $325,000 each year, another $13.65 million could be saved if state conventions also moved to a biennial meeting schedule.

SBC + State Convention Math

$9.8 million + $13.65 million = $23.45 million every 2 years/2 years = $11.7 million/year

Concluding Thoughts

I recognize that not every person who attends the Convention each year will take their money and use it for a mission trip or donate it to Lottie Moon or Annie Armstrong. Nevertheless, churches would have more resources for ministry in their community or to save and send messengers biennially.

Agencies would save significant dollars typically spent for purchasing, erecting, and staffing booths at the SBC and could re-deploy those dollars to hire a professor, send more missionaries, or commission more church planters. The direct expenditures by the Executive Committee in the "off years" could be a significant way of reaching mark of at least 51 percent of the SBC allocation budget being used to fund the IMB.

Considering a move to biennial meetings is not considering change for the sake of change; it is considering meaningful change for the sake of mission and ministry - for the sake of Christ and the gospel.

I thank you for your consideration and welcome your questions or comments.

Possible Other Biennial Objections

1. What about the end of Trustee terms and the need to approve new Trustees on an annual basis?

If biennial meetings began right away, Trustee terms that are slated for an odd number of years (i.e. 5 years) and which are scheduled to conclude in an odd-numbered year would either need to be reduced or extended by one year.

However, it will take until at least 2014 to approve biennial meetings because amendments to our governing documents must be approved by a supermajority of the messengers for two meetings in a row.

Furthermore, if biennial meetings were approved, we would also need to approve a special-called meeting to replace any annual meeting for which we already have a contractual obligation.

What this means is that there should be plenty of time to align Trustee terms to a biennial meeting schedule without reducing or extending any Trustee terms. Those agencies that have Trustees who serve for five-year terms would need to either increase or reduce the term by one year. My personal preference would be to opt for four-year terms as this would allow for even more Baptists to have an opportunity to serve in these important roles.

2. What about emergency situations?

The Constitution already makes provision for a special-called meeting. If the emergency is worth spending several million dollars, we should call a meeting and resolve it. The exception should not make the rule; the Constitution already has provisions for dealing with exceptional cases.

3. I recognize that I may be overlooking some credible objections.

If you think I have missed something, please comment on this post. If you convince me that we should stay with annual meetings, and I'm open to that possibility, great! If not, I will try to respond as charitably and convincingly as I know how. Thank you for considering biennial meetings and helping me think well and thoroughly about the idea.

Up next

Can we really save more than $10 million each year by moving to biennial meetings?

Biennial Objection #4: We are a Relational People

Of the four objections offered by the Executive Committee, I am most sympathetic to the observation that, "Southern Baptists have always been a relational people." I love being a Baptist, and I love being with Baptists especially with a cup of coffee in hand and a plate of beignets in front of me.

Several Baptists who agree with the idea of returning to biennial meetings have shared with me that the only minor reservation they have is the loss of an annual opportunity to meet fellow Baptists.

They also add, however, that they are often unable to attend annually anyway, primarily due to the costs associated with attending a Convention.

The Baptists who are most capable of attending annually are those whose Convention trip is paid for by: the Convention, a denominational agency, or a large church. The vast majority of Southern Baptists are still members of smaller churches, and annual meetings are often beyond their reach.

Moving to a biennial meeting could put the Convention within reach of more pastors and smaller churches and actually broaden the scope of relationships that are forged and deepened at the Convention.

The average American family has a net worth today that is 39.9 percent lower than it was in the spring of 2008. We live in different times; we are facing significantly reduced church and denominational budgets; resources are scarce; we should be discussing the high price of meeting annually and seeking ways to invest more resources directly into mission and ministry.

The lostness of the world, the presently very low attendance at annual meetings, and Christ's expectation that we exercise faithful stewardship of His resources demands that we at least seriously consider biennial meetings.

Of course, moving to biennial meetings would not stop Baptists from being "a relational people." Southern Baptists were relational when they met on a Triennial basis, and they are relational today.

Fortunately, we have opportunities to foster relationships in ways that Baptists, even 25 years ago, could have never envisioned. From North Carolina, I frequently keep up with fellow Baptists of a wide variety of ages living in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, Tennessee, and etc.

Furthermore, if the SBC moved to a biennial meeting schedule in even-numbered years, and the states moved to a biennial meeting schedule in odd-numbered years, Baptists would still have an annual opportunity to "relate" to one another. I recognize the SBC cannot make states adopt a biennial meeting schedule, but it can be recommended. This approach would, I believe, facilitate greater participation by greater numbers of messengers from greater numbers of churches at both the state and national levels.

As much as Baptists are relational, they are also missional. We are never more obedient to Christ than when we are scattered among our neighbors and the nations extending God's salvation to the ends of the earth by showing and telling those in the wilderness that the world is not as it should be, that we know the Way to a better land.

For the sake of Christ and the Gospel, biennial meetings are worthy of our strong consideration. We can make this change and remain a relational -- and missional -- people doing everything possible to exercise faithful stewardship of the resources Christ has entrusted to us for the advance of His Kingdom.

Biennial Objection #3: We are not Hierarchical

The Executive Committee's third objection states, "Southern Baptists are not hierarchical and therefore need to meet annually to discern the will of the messengers through God's leading to effectively and efficiently facilitate our cooperative mission endeavors to reach a lost and dying world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

The Executive Committee is exactly right when they declare, "Southern Baptists are not hierarchical", but their objection quickly goes astray when they write, "and therefore need to meet annually to discern the will of the messengers. . . ."

We were not hierarchical when we met on a Triennial basis, a biennial basis, or, theoretically, now. While this objection may initially sound compelling, it actually represents a category shift in argumentation.

Hierarchy is a function of who has ultimate authority in making decisions and how decisions are made, but it is not a function of how often decisions are made.

For example, a church with congregational polity that moves from quarterly business meetings to semi-annual meetings is not automatically accepting a change that introduces hierarchy. The messengers to the Convention, like the members of a local church, establish the parameters for the administration of the Convention through the approval of budgets, policies, and etc.

As long as the messengers have the same level of control over the same things they control now, and as long as they have the opportunity to call an emergency meeting to address a legitimate crisis or breach of authority, a biennial meeting does not introduce hierarchy at all.

In the life of the SBC, a primary instrument that the messengers of the SBC use to govern the agencies we fund and cherish -- the convention allocation budget -- is already approved on a biennial basis.

If one follows the Executive Committee's argument to its logical end, the Southern Baptist Convention should meet every day, for this would be the only way to assure that we are not hierarchical.

The very existence of an Executive Committee recognizes there is a difference between governing the Convention through the approval of budgets and policies and administering the Convention's agencies during the time between Convention meetings.

If this distinction, that of governance and administration, is not maintained (and it is an appropriate distinction), it is difficult to understand how we can even have an Executive Committee or how the Convention could ever not be in session.

Hierarchy is introduced by reducing or eliminating the authority of the messengers to govern or by unnecessarily limiting the ability of messengers to address the Convention when the Convention meets. It is not introduced by adding 365 days between meetings.

As long as messengers to the Convention are truly able to govern, and the Executive Committee truly limits its activities to facilitating, administering, and otherwise carrying out the wishes of the Convention as expressed in their meetings and governing documents, no additional hierarchy is introduced by a return to biennial meetings.

Historic Baptist polity and lines of authority are not threatened by a return to biennial meetings.

**One bonus argument here. A move to a biennial meeting could actually improve the opportunity for Baptists to be involved in their Convention. In my own informal questioning of messengers at this year's SBC, I learned that many messengers are only able to attend intermittently because of cost. This change would enable smaller churches to save for two years to send their pastor to the convention. I will discuss this further in a concluding post on the topic, but, for now, I simply want to note that this change could actually increase attendance at meetings and allow a greater percentage of the churches of our Convention to participate.

Biennial Meetings Objection #2: Timely Consideration and Discussion

The second objection to biennial meetings is that, "The current annual meeting schedule of the Convention enables messengers the opportunity to facilitate timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention."

Following a convention in which only 1 of 19 motions was referred to the messengers for debate or discussion, and only 30 minutes was allotted for introducing such motions, this is an interesting objection indeed!

If New Orleans is our model, eliminating a Convention meeting would eliminate 30 minutes of introducing motions and almost zero minutes of consideration and discussion of interests brought to the floor directly by the messengers and not by a pre-appointed committee.

To be sure, I am very much in favor of timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. With that said, I would like to make a few observations.

First, the election of officers in the odd-numbered years is already a perfunctory matter. Currently, as long as there is not a moral failure, we return in odd-numbered years to re-elect the president and the other elected officers to the second year of a two-year term. Why not just elect them to serve a two-year term?

Second, just take a look at the 2012 Book of Reports which includes the proceedings from Phoenix in 2011. It is a very thin document - especially after you extract the reports from the institutions which could simply be made available electronically without the need for a multi-million dollar meeting (I will explain my financial calculations in a later post).

Third, agency budget allocations are already approved on a two-year schedule. So, the real "interests of the Convention" -- how/why/where to invest the resources that God has entrusted to us -- are already a conversation that we have agreed to have once every two years.

Occasionally, there are other things to talk about, but they can usually wait. In those rare instances they cannot, our governing documents already make provision for a special-called meeting. If there is an issue worth a multi-million dollar meeting in the off years, we should call a special meeting. If there is not, we would be exercising wise stewardship by waiting another 12 months.

Fourth, in calling for a biennial meeting schedule, I assume that meeting in the even-numbered years would be best. This would continue to give the Convention of Great Commission Baptists an opportunity to speak with one voice on issues confronting our nation in the years in which we have significant national elections - i.e. Presidential elections and mid-term congressional elections.

In short, moving to a biennial meeting schedule does not limit our ability to engage in timely consideration and discussion of the interests of the Convention. There may be other factors that are limiting such disucssion, but such a charge cannot be laid at the feet of biennial meetings.

Indeed, if a biennial schedule enabled more messengers to attend and churches to be represented (and I believe that it would), a biennial schedule would actually allow for more messengers to take part in our Convention's "considerations and disucssions."

It is time for the timely consideration of biennial meetings.

Biennial Meetings Objection #1: What about Reporting?

Of the Executive Committee's four objections to adopting to a biennial meeting schedule, there is really only one that sounds insurmountable.

The Executive Committee writes, "The SBC Bylaws and Business and Financial Plan require the publication and presentation of annual ministry, financial, and budgetary reports." (emphasis added).

In this objection, our governing documents seem to be given an authority over the Convention that is inviolable. The implication of the statement seems to be that the documents simply cannot be changed. One wonders how a convention that used to meet Triennially ever came to have an annual meeting schedule.

We are Baptists, and the messengers to the Convention may amend their documents - period. The Convention has amended her governing documents in times past, and we may do so again if we determine this is the wise and prudent thing to do.

To be sure, the governing documents, as currently written, require the publication of reports, and they most certainly should. However, a biennial meeting schedule does not have to significantly change this requirement.

To accomodate a biennial meeting schedule, we could either 1) eliminate annual reports altogether (a bad idea) or 2) amend our governing documents to allow for reports that are made to churches, pastors, state conventions, and denominational leaders in the "off years" rather than directly to the Convention proper (not a bad idea at all).

The Executive Committee already receives reports from agency leaders on a regular basis; budget allocations are already made on a biennial basis, and agencies would continue to report as they currently do to the Executive Committee.

The only difference: in the off-years, agencies would report all of the same information to the Executive Committee, and those reports would be made available electronically and disseminated as widely as possible among those who associate with the SBC. The reports that would otherwise be given by agency heads on the floor of a convention could still be made to the Executive Committee and delivered, recorded, and made available to all SBC churches.

Arguably, more Baptists could hear from our agencies in the off years than in the years of the Convention!

In short, the reporting objection is a non-objection. If we can change the frequency of our meetings, we can also change the frequency and/or acceptable means of delivering reports.

To see how the amendments I proposed would allow for a biennial meeting while preserving a form of annual reporting in the "off years," you may read the amendments in their entirety here.

What Happened to the Biennial Motion at the New Orleans SBC?

To everyone who appreciates and understands the rationale for the amendments I introduced in New Orleans seeking a return to a biennial convention schedule, thank you for your encouragement, interest, prayers, and support.

If one meeting of the SBC every two years was sufficient to conduct the business of the Convention in the era of the horse and buggy, it seems a biennial meeting should be sufficient in the era of FaceBook, Twitter, and the world wide web.

Of course, we should not embrace biennial meetings simply because we can. We need a compelling reason to make such a change. Currently, there are nearly 7 billion compelling reasons to consider biennial meetings.

The Convention declared in 2010, along with the distinguished leaders who served on the Great Commission Task Force, that prioritizing the use of our resources for maximal effectiveness in fulfilling the Great Commission is deeply important to us and should impact the way we conduct the business of our Conventions and agencies.

Prioritizing access to the gospel and funding the advance of the gospel is not merely the stuff of convenient strategic planning, it is inherent to the gospel itself.

The call for biennial meetings is not an esoteric call for rethinking everything we do as Great Commission Baptists. It would actually change very little of what we do.

It would, however, give us an opportunity to invest millions - yes millions - more dollars in training pastors and missionaries and reaching our neighbors and the nations.

Any proposal that would allow us to deploy millions more in pursuing the very things we seek to accomplish through our cooperation deserves the consideration of our Convention.

Godly people can certainly disagree on implementing such a change, but we should not fear or avoid a discussion of its merits.

When the Committee on Order of Business referred my motion to the Executive Committee, they turned the motion over to the Committee that had already outlined its disagreement with biennial meetings following my motion requesting the study in 2010.

I attempted to ask for a floor debate, but the question was called very quickly in a rapid series of other motions that were, appropriately, referred to the Trustees of the agencies in question.

For motions dealing with with the governing documents of the Convention herself, the appropriate "Trustees" to consider the motion are not those of the Executive Committee but the messengers of the Convention directly.

My initial motions to amend our governing documents were in order and, as such, the default recommendation from the Committee on Order of Business should have been to the messengers, not the Executive Committee. We are still Baptists, are we not?

The problem with my motions was that they were regarded as neither wise nor or desirable by the Committee and were subsequently referred without the clear understanding of the Convention that a discussion could (and should) have taken place.

The Committee is simply supposed to determine whether motions are in order. The job of the messengers is to determine if they are wise. No where in the Constitution or Bylaws is the Executive Committee given authority to weigh these matters independently of the Convention herself.

The purview of the Executive Committee does not include protecting us from unwise decisions regarding amendments to our governing documents. The Constitution itself provides these protections by requiring an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the Convention messengers for two successive meetings in a row!

That is, rightly, a very tall order. This is all the protection we need.

I hope, next year, for an opportunity to have a family conversation regarding the wisdom or lack of wisdom in moving to biennial meetings.

If we can save and redeploy millions in the battle to reach billions without sacrificing transparency or sound business practices, the proposal deserves serious consideration by the people to whom God has entrusted this Convention - the messengers themselves.

Coming up next

In my next post, I will list and respond to the objections of the Executive Committee to biennial meetings as given in their response to a request for a financial study of the cost of Conventions in 2010.

Dear Christian: For the sake of our souls, let's talk; let's talk about giving.

Recently, I wrote a letter about my journey in the field of financial development and why the work of raising money for the best seminary in the world is a legitimate, gospel-centered work. Indeed it is an act of worship and discipleship. We cannot claim to be heirs of grace if we are unconcerned about growing in the grace of giving. The letter begins with the next paragraph.

Ten years ago, I began work as a fundraiser for a major research university. The cultural, entertainment, and professional opportunities available were fantastic, but a terrible thought haunted me day-by-day.

The funds I secured supported a school that often ignored the “universal” aspect of her mission. The truth that one God made everything and that we should pursue an understanding of His glory and absolute authority over all things was routinely dismissed as “small-minded.” As I simmered in the cauldron of a foolish and fickle culture enamored with worldly wisdom, the Lord reminded me that He is wisdom — period. If God could be foolish, His foolishness would surpass even the most ingenious worldly thought.

Over time, I arrived at a moral crisis of the first order. I regularly met Christians who invested more in growing a college athletics program or academic department than in fueling the advance of the gospel. The Lord showed me that seeking first His Kingdom meant no longer raising money for initiatives that did not advance, and sometimes undermined, the progress of the gospel. On the day I raised the largest gift in my career, a gift from a Southern Baptist, I was privately devastated. . . what a missed opportunity.

Ten years later, I have the tremendous privilege of raising support for the greatest seminary on the planet. And yet, not every Christian immediately sees it this way. I am frequently asked, “How do you do your job?” or, more directly, “How can you ask someone else for money?” I did everything possible to avoid these probing questions while raising money for a secular university. Today, I eagerly embrace them.

It is often said, “The most difficult topic to discuss in church is giving.” But, why should teaching about the grace of giving be entered upon tentatively when the essence of the gospel is that God gave His Son?

In 1 Corinthians 4:1–2, Paul urges the church, “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” What a challenging admonition! We are responsible for our stewardship of the gospel.

Scripture reveals that our willingness and eagerness to give is not so much about giving as it is about the spiritual health of our hearts. Avoiding the issue of giving leaves us vulnerable to a major case of spiritual heart disease. The pastor’s God-given responsibility is to charge the flock of God to examine their hearts and be ready to give (1 Tim. 6:17–19). Pastor, challenge the flock! Christian, urge your pastor to exhort you to excel in the grace of investing for the global advance of the gospel.

Faithful stewardship of the gospel demands that we invest wisely – consistent with the priorities of Christ’s Kingdom and not those of this world. When people consider the gospel and its impact on giving, they will want to know where they can invest and exercise faithful stewardship of the resources God has entrusted to their care.

There are few places like Southeastern, a church-initiated ministry in which believers can invest and impact a variety of gospel-centered initiatives. Where else can a Christian give and realize an immediate return that multiplies into eternity through Christ-exalting alumni serving in so many meaningful ministries? Today, our alumni serve in churches, military and work-place chaplaincy, church plants, Christian education, counseling, reaching unreached people groups, Bible translation, campus ministry, pregnancy support services, and much more.

Over the next 15–20 years, despite the current status of our economy, we will witness the largest generational transfer of wealth in our nation’s history. As baby boomers consider the end-of-life implications for their assets, the tax and financial implications will be huge. Now is the time to be asking big, gospel-centered questions and dreaming big, gospel-centered dreams!

The question every Christian must consider is this: “How can I exercise faithful stewardship of the gospel?” As you ask this question, and as you consider others in your sphere of influence who should ask this question, please keep Southeastern in mind.

If you would like to read the rest of the letter, please visit http://www.sebts.edu/alumni/giving/default.aspx.

Love Your Kids: Discipline Them!

A couple of evenings ago, just about bedtime, Elizabeth did something she's been warned about several times over the past few months. She has known since the last incident that punishment, not a warning, would be forthcoming for a repeat offense.

As soon as she committed the offense, she knew what she had done and stopped immediately. Her eyes met mine with a look that said, "Daddy, please, please, please do not realize what I just did!"

I knew. . . . She knew that I knew.

All the way up the stairs to Elizabeth's bedroom, I was thinking of dozens of reasons to just ignore her offense and pretend it didn't happen. Did I really want to deal with this right at bed time?! I was tired and ready to relax. Then, the Spirit brought to mind two passages of Scripture.

First, I thought of Romans 1:28-9, where it says, in part, "God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness . . . ."

God does not give sinners over to unrighteousness after just one, two, or even several sins. He gives over those who declare that what is obviously sin is "good." God is so patient with sinners that some mistake His patience for a lack of concern for righteousness.

But, God's patience is for our repentance. Peter puts it this way, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (2 Pet 3:9).

The next text that came to mind, almost simultaneously was Proverbs 3:12 where we read, "For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights."
In that moment, as we walked up the stairs and Elizabeth stared intently into my eyes, I had a choice. I could reinforce Elizabeth's understanding that what she had done was wrong by following through with the punishment that had been promised, or I could risk giving her over - allowing her to think her daddy really does not mind whether she obeys or not.
 
Like a good father, God corrects his children. God's discipline is actually an expression of His patient love for us. He could simply destroy us, but He patiently corrects and leads to repentance.
 
So, here's the point: loving your kids does not mean sweeping their sins under the rug - even when you are exhausted. What a challenge!

Family Worship (Day 2): Colossians 1:3–8

Questions

According to v.5, what is the basis of a Christian’s faith in Christ Jesus and love for all the saints?

Where do we find true hope (v. 5)?

Who do you know who needs to “know” (v. 7) (realize/see/understand) that the gospel is the message that God offers grace to those who believe His son?

Worship in Song

Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbe7OruLk8I

Prayer

Thank God for the true hope that we find in the message of the gospel that leads us to believe in the Son and love the brethren. Praise Him for being a gracious God and for giving His Spirit to enable Christians to bear His fruit and to love one another.

Family Worship (Day 1): Colossians 1:3–8

3 We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your love for all the saints; 5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, 6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth; 7 as you also learned from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf, 8 who also declared to us your love in the Spirit.

Summary: Paul learns from Epaphras, his fellow-worker, about the status of the believers at Colossae. Paul is both encouraged by their faith in Christ as reported to him by Epaphras and concerned about a heresy which undermines who Christ is and what He has done by suggesting Christ is not sufficient for salvation. Paul begins his letter by expressing his thanksgiving for the authentic Christian life that characterizes the believers at Colossae. Paul wants the Colossians to appreciate that they already have true life which springs from the truth of the gospel. One of the greatest weapons we have against any heresy which undermines the person or work of Jesus Christ is gratefulness for all we have been given in Christ – everything we need for now and forevermore!

Questions

Paul is thankful for the believers at Colossae because they give evidence of being Christians.

What is the evidence of the Christian life that Paul mentions?

What Christians are you thankful for because their lives are consistent with their claim to be followers of Christ?

Worship in Song

Listen to By Faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YISm700Pc

Prayer

Thank God for Christians you know whose lives are characterized by faith in Christ Jesus, love for all the saints in the Spirit, and increasing fruitfulness as they walk with Christ. Pray that God would embolden you to live as an example for which others can be thankful. Pray that you would always have gratitude for your life in Christ so that no one could tempt you to believe that Christ has not provided everything you need for life and godliness.

Family Worship (Day 2): Romans 1:8-15

Day 2 - Prayers for the strengthening of the church

9For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, 10making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. 11For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established— 12that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

Summary: Paul is eager to get to Rome to encourage the believers there, to be encouraged by them, and to allow God to work through Him to "establish" or strengthen the church. It is God who will do the establishing of the church as they remember their mutual faith that came through the hearing of the gospel. Paul is so overwhelmed with thinking about Rome that he prays for them every time that he prays! He cannot help but pray for the believers at Rome. The only person who could stop Paul from getting to Rome was God Himself.

Questions
Have you ever wanted something this badly? What? Why?

Imagine you are one of the Christians in Rome reading Paul's letter for the first time. How would it make you feel to know he prayed for you all the time and wanted to encourage you?

Worship in Song
The only hope for the church to be strengthened in the faith - to grow as disciples - is the faithfulness of God to finish what He has started.

Sing Great is thy Faithfulness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k1WhFtVp0o

Prayer
Parents, lead your family in praying that God would strengthen your church and that he would allow your family to be a part of the mutual encouragement that comes only through a common faith in Christ.