While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 4 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document. Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug
IV. Some questions that I'm wondering at this point:
Are the GCRTF recommendations to change NAMB/State agreements and to celebrate “Great Commission Giving” going to recover the funding that churches now send to non-SBC missions work? Or has that funding left because churches feel that other organizations are better stewards of missions dollars?
Are these recommendations intended to deflect the criticism that is often brought against churches, and their leaders, that have grown large enough that they consider themselves “too big” to give on the same percentage basis they did when they were smaller? Is this a case of soothing the mega-churches of the SBC, and will it cause the foundational smaller churches to look elsewhere?
Have we spent this money and this effort simply to grind an ax with the Executive Committee and the percentage counters? The end result of structural changes seems to be just that. The only entities expected to decrease their spending, as the recommendations go, are states and the EC. There is no suggestion that seminaries, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, or any other CP recipient see a budget squeeze.
While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 4 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document. Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug The hinge point of the GCR seems to be about structural change and the control of funding. Specifically, we seem to be having an extremely large stir about “Great Commission Giving” and the dissolving of “Cooperative Agreements” between state conventions and the North American Mission Board. The stirring point for the whole action seems to have come from our inability to fund the IMB Missionaries we've wanted.
The first observation I'd like to make: SBC churches have always been allowed to designate every dime they give to the work of the Convention. The Cooperative Program exists to allow churches to contribute to all agencies and operations, and to fund those items which need budgets both too large (IMB) for single church support or too small (like the Historical Commission) to expect much in the way of designation.
Even if a church didn't know how to designate the giving, if it wanted the IMB to get everything, it could have given it all through the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Likewise NAMB and the Annie Armstrong Offering, and I would be stunned to find a seminary that would turn down a gift.
As evidenced by the SBC system for preregistering messengers, all of those designated gifts count towards the $250 to be allowed a messenger. For example, the system accounts our church as having contributed the total of our Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon Christmas Offering (LMCO), Annie Armstrong Easter Offering (AAEO), and a direct designation we've been making to an IMB Missionary on the field. So, no church should be being denied either the opportunity to send messengers or serve on Boards/Committees due to designated giving. I'd venture, though I lack evidence, that far more small churches are denied involvement because of travel expenses to Convention meeting locations.
Since the SBC allows churches to directly designate gifts, including designating to bypass state convention choices, then concerns about state allocations or bureaucracy should be evidenced by seeing designated giving around the general Cooperative Program (CP). This is evidenced by the much-discussed decrease in general CP giving among churches overall. However, if the churches that find problems with either states or specific CP agencies have designated their giving, it should be reflected in a corresponding increase in designated giving to the appropriate agencies. For example, if the prevailing concern is that the International Mission Board (IMB) does not receive enough of the shared pie, the SBC should be seeing more churches give directly to the IMB and bypassing all other activities. The IMB should, therefore, be on the positive receiving end.
Instead, what has happened is that many churches have, apparently, moved to also supporting other missions groups or directly supporting their own missionaries.
Screaming to make the point: THIS IS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE AUTONOMY AND AUTHORITY OF A LOCAL CHURCH TO DO AS THEY FEEL GOD AS DIRECTED WITH THE FINANCES HE HAS GIVEN THEM!
How a church spends 100% of the funding God gives them reflects their Great Commission passion. Every last penny we spend should be about spreading the Gospel, making disciples , and obeying the commands of Scripture. One of our issues is that we have spent untold resources on things that, in all honesty, don't match those expectations. This problem is not specific to one type of church or another, but a problem I believe all churches and organizations face at various times.
It is neither fair nor appropriate to judge a church's commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ based on their giving to the Southern Baptist Convention. In no way, shape, form, or fashion, neither by percentage or volume, can we say that a church that greatly supports the SBC greatly supports Christ nor the inverse.
However, the amount given to SBC causes is an adequate measure of a church's commitment to the Southern Baptist Convention. As such, it is a valid question for those who would claim the leadership of the SBC to reveal their commitment to the SBC. This is not about Christian commitment or leadership, but specifically about leadership and commitment within our own context as Southern Baptists.
Ok, well, yesterday was a good day at church, with just a few minor blips. However, you can click back to the previous post and listen to the whole AM service and the sermon from Sunday night and judge for yourself. (Alternately, you can take the podcast. It's worth every penny!*)
I found Kara Sawyer's testimony particularly challenging to me. I'm on a slow roll towards finishing a degree, and her testimony of dealing with life and finishing hers pushed me to make sure I'm striving as I should toward my own.
This morning, I was finishing up the book of Romans in my study time. I've only been pouring through this book for about a year now, and finally, I've come to the end. Romans 16:20 struck me:
"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (NASB)
What struck?
1. God crushes. Not me. Leave it to Him.
2. Satan is the promised crushed one. He's the enemy, not anyone else. Including politicians.
3. God remains the God of peace even though He crushes. Why? Because peace requires evil be crushed. Peace-making requires disposing of evil.
Paul ends with this statement:
"To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen." Romans 16:27 (NASB)
Is that my focus today? Yours? Our church focus? That to Him be the glory, forever? And do we grasp how serious an "amen" is? It's born of a vow, the solemn word of a person of honor. I had a professor in college state that an "amen" was placing your life in agreement, even if it costs your life, with the statement. Is my life committed to the glory of the Only? Um. Perhaps I need to work on that.
Doug
*For those of you who don't know it: Podcasts are free. To upload and download.
Above is the music player. The AM file contains the entire service, while the evening file is just the sermon. Here are the sermon outlines:
Text: Matthew 10:5-15
Theme: First Things First
Date: May 16, 2010
Location: CBC Monticello
First Action: Go to those around you.
The disciples are sent to the children of Israel
These are the people they have encountered all their lives
They will, eventually, scatter across the whole world
We have a responsibility to start here
And then we go on
First Purpose: Preach the kingdom
Everything else proceeds from this point.
The church is not here solely to do social work
Neither is the church here to be a social club
Our lives are meant to be wrapped around preaching the Kingdom
First Evidence: Heal, raise, cleanse, cast out.
There are certain problems that interfere with people hearing of the Kingdom
Do what God has enabled you to do about those problems:
The Disciples prayed and miracles happened
God has given you gifts to use: Spiritual, emotional, financial, mental, physical
First Test: Do not be sidelined to pursue comfort
The disciples go out with just enough
They must rely on people to provide what they will need
There is no promise they will receive anything
There is instruction that, even if offered, they should turn down comfort or back-up provisions
First Promise: You will be defended by God as your sender
Notice that Jesus does not say that the disciples will be protected
He only states that those who do not receive their words will be worse off than Sodom.
There's no guarantee of acceptance or of success.
Only that God has commanded you to do it!
→ Freely give of what you received: the forgiveness of God
Text: Philippians 4:1-3
Theme: Stand Firm!
Date: May 16, 2010 PM
Location: CBC Monticello
Stop bickering!
Euodia and Syntyche as examples.
→ Feud source is not explained
→ It is not a fight over truth
→ else Paul would have chosen sides
→ They are instructed to live in harmony
→ Someone referred to as “loyal yokefellow” or “true companion” is to help → some translators take as a name “Syzygus”
→ Name/meaning: Barnabas
→ Note: no one's salvation or commitment to Christ is in doubt. This is a dispute within the family. However, it's big enough that Paul addresses it from a distance.
→ Application:
→What makes a petty dispute? Anything that holds a person more responsible to you for their actions than they are to the God who made them, the Savior who died for them.
→What makes a petty dispute? Anything that, in light of eternity, looks silly. If no one will be drawn into or pushed away from the Kingdom of God for it, it's petty.
→What makes a petty dispute? Placing ourselves,our traditions, even our needs as more important than the spread of the Gospel, the making of disciples.
→ What makes a petty dispute? Allowing the prevailing culture to define our Christianity, rather than expecting the prevailing culture to clash with the demands of our faith.
→Church squabbles distract from what is important. They result from losing focus on what our purpose is:
The struggle for the cause of the Gospel.
To live for Christ
To preach Christ
To know Christ and His suffering
Are we willing to do this? Are we willing to set aside the bickering? Paul called the Philippians to unite for the labor that the apostles had called them to for the sake of Christ.
Are we willing to unite for the labor the Holy Spirit calls us to do?
I'd like to point you to a song well worth the downloading. Legally, of course, because they could use the sales numbers!! (And the money. Rock stars need money, after all.)
It's entitled "You're Not Alone" and it's from the band Downhere. You can get it from Amazon.com or from iTunes, but here's a quick link to Amazon for it:
Why Amazon? It's an affiliate link. If you buy it from that link, I'll make a nickel. If that much.
That's not the point. The point is that this song is worth your listening to. It's an encouraging song, and it's very much a message that I've needed to hear these days.
Here are the lyrics, for those of you that either don't listen to the rock or, like me, can't quite hear perfectly well!
You feel the isolation, slowly take a toll This season of waiting, is starting to get old Looking for acceptance, and aching for a home So tired of trying to make it out on your own There's no easy answer, but one thing you should know You're not alone, anywhere you go You're not alone, hear the voice whisper to your soul A promise you can always hold: You're not alone, no You're stuck in a dive and you've almost had enough Because of what you've been through, it's difficult to trust You're still barely hanging on, trying hard to fight If anybody's listening, you want to know tonight There's no easy answer, but one thing you should know You're not alone, anywhere you go You're not alone, hear the voice whisper to your soul A promise you can always hold: You're not alone, no You're not alone You're not alone Reach out, don't reach within I'm it the door, if you just let me in Reach out for what you need What you won't find in yourself, you will find in me You're not alone, hear the voice whisper to your soul I'll never leave or let you go You're not alone, I'm with you to the end You're not alone, I'm closer than a friend You're not alone, and I'm with you to the end You're not alone, closer than a friend You're not alone
(You're not alone by Downhere, I'm sure it's copyrighted 2010 between them and Centricity records, their label)
I thought I'd take a look at this verse, and ponder a few things that come from what it says.
I. This verse gives us a good look into how we don't take the Word at face value these days. How many of us greet our fellow church members with a kiss? (International readers, we know some of you do.) Why do we not do what the Word says?
II. Ah, we don't do it because we're not convinced that, while it seems to be a plain command, we shouldn't just automatically do it. Why not? Typically, we don't do the plain commands of Scripture because we think we shouldn't have to do them. Now, some of you are wondering how to get around this, aren't you?
III. This verse shows the need to extract the meaning through the cultural context. The greeting with a holy kiss would be culturally the action of greeting between people that know, trust, and honor each other. So what is Paul's command worth to us? Is it just that we should greet one another in the appropriate manner to shows fellowship, trust, honor, and love? Many churches in America say this is why we greet with a handshake or a hug, if you're a hugging church.
IV. I don't think this is right. I think Paul is reminding the church at Rome that is appropriate in church to greet one another in accordance with our relationships. In other words, he's not commanding that the Romans greet each other with a holy kiss to check off the holy kiss on their activity in church card. He's pointing out that, since they do have true fellowship with one another, let it be shown.
V. The point is this: we have developed a habit of reading Scripture searching for actions to take. Now, that's a good thing, as far as it goes, but the same God who said "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (Joel 2:13) is the one we follow. The actions we are seeking should be reflective of where our hearts stand, not our surface level of actions. Rather than figuring out whether we should kiss or handshake, we should be focused on building the attitude that results in the right actions.
VI. A final warning: we cannot go disregarding the actions mandated by Scripture. While we do need to discern whether the actions are cultural or timeless, and how they apply to us, we cannot just toss them out. Whether we are looking for a loophole because we don't like them, or because we're not really up to it. Our hearts ought to lead to action, else our hearts aren't really where we claim they are. This is, however, not perfectly evident here. It's the whole message of the book of James, though. The "intentions" are useless if they do not lead to action.
