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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, August 28, 2009
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.
If you are in search of the more comprehensive apology noted in the Florida Baptist Witness, please see this post. Thank you.
Friday, August 14, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)