Church Excludes Two Seminaries from CP Funding by Peter Lumpkins

According to The Christian Index, one of Georgia’s largest CP supporting churches voted May 4, 2011 to “designate [their] funds around two entities of the Southern Baptist Convention,”  namely Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC >>>

The Christian Index editor, Gerald Harris writes: “On May 4 Abilene Baptist Church in Martinez voted to revise their budget so that the church will no longer give to Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary through the Cooperative Program” (//link)

In a letter to GBC Executive Director J. Robert White, Abilene’s pastor, William “Bill” Harrell stated, “For all my personal ministry, I have been a fully cooperating Georgia Baptist and Southern Baptist pastor. It has been my privilege to lead those churches I have served to give more and more each year to the Cooperative Program.” The full letter can be read on Abilene’s website (//link).

Pastor Harrell specifically cited aggressive Calvinism as one of the reasons Abilene voted to exclude Southern and Southeastern seminaries from funding. In addition, the church specifically excluded any of their CP monies being used to assist Acts 29 Network church plants. This particular exclusion poses challenges to the Executive Committee since NAMB is in some ways “jointly” sponsoring church plants with Acts 29 Network church plants. How they will untangle that web, of course, is not Abilene’s problem but theirs.

Readers need to understand that this decision by Abilene Church is unprecedented in her history. Not only has Abilene church been a consistently strong CP giving church, Abilene has annually given directly to seminaries tens of thousands of dollars outside their regular CP giving. Especially has Southeastern seminary historically received large gifts from Abilene. Not any more, apparently.

Is this the beginning of the end of the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention?  Were those who warned some testy, inexperienced but popular cheerleaders for the GCRTF agenda to "leave the Cooperative Program alone or they’d mess it up" being proved prophets before our very eyes? Already the CP percentages continue to free fall. Now historic, unflinching CP supporting churches like Abilene withholding funds from particular entities because we have leaders out of touch with grassroots Southern Baptists—theologically, ecclesiologically, and methodologically?  Is the crackup of the Cooperative Program inevitable? 

Hear another influential, large church pastor from middle Georgia, Mike Stone, pastor at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Blackshear, weigh in. Harris writes:

Mike Stone…seems to think it may be the start of a significant change in the way churches channel their money. Stone commented, “The actions by Pastor Harrell and the Abilene congregation represent what may be a coming seismic shift in SBC life. Here is a respected leader, pillar of the Conservative Resurgence, and former chairman of the SBC Executive Committee feeling led to such action. I definitely feel this is a sign of a growing rift in our convention”

If the masses of Southern Baptists do not take their convention back, we’ll be beat, dead broke and busted in 10 years.

Some among us could care less about that I assure. They want nothing more than to change Southern Baptists. The odd thing is, I do too.  Read this very slowly: I too want Southern Baptists to change. The difference between us is gargantuan, however. I want Southern Baptists to change because I love Southern Baptists. On the other hand, too many today want to change Southern Baptists not because they love Southern Baptists but because they hate Southern Baptists.

They seek to change us because they hate us

Give that a think or two over the weekend.

With that, I am…

Peter   

Comments

[Jon Estes]

"I think this Church should answer some questions like:"

Answer to who? Someone other than themselves? If they chose to bypass their funds to two seminaries because they have to many trees on the property, they do not have to give any reason more than they choose and we can want answers all day but they owe no one, but themselves, the reason.

Why do you think they "should" answer your questions? Because you have some?

[Steve Evans]

It certainly appears as if the AAEO numbers are way down......otherwise why would NAMB withhold those numbers until after the convention? Just wondering! Could it be that there are others, maybe many others, who feel the same way as Abilene Baptist?

[Mark]

Casey,

I suppose then that you may want to start writing to correct the various articles that used the language of "adoption" concerning the GCR which includes the Baptist Press. You may even find that language in an article on this site which states, "The SBC Bolshevik revolution took place not in Red October, as with the Russian Bolsheviks, but in the June 2009 and 2010 SBC conventions with the adoption of the Great Commission Resurgence report."

IOW, I'm pointing out that whatever concerns you may have about D.R.'s use of "adoption" do not seem warranted.

[CASEY]

to D.R. Randle: You hurt your own credibility and argument when you say the "GCR was adopted". The actual vote was "to receive it" a far cry from SBC approval/adoption. You need to be more careful, observant and investigative. It does make one wonder if you've really given your responses careful consideration before 'spouting off'.
As I understand it, there will be an attempt in PHOENIX to adopt/approve it. I urge those who believe 'grassroots up' and not 'top down' Southern Baptists polity to come to PHOENIX and vote this 'junk' down.

[peter lumpkins]

Jason,

Why, certainly Jason. Glad to have been helpful. And, for the record, I not once said any quote *proved* anything. I made it clear the Stetzer quote was *one of many* from which I drew my conclusion, and gave you liberty to conclude otherwise. Now for the last time, Jason, you are welcome to disagree to your heart's content. Only not here. I have no time to keep tit/tatting about nothing.

Oh, and by the way, yes. I hate the SBC. I'm afraid you really found me out. My, oh My! To what undeniable conclusions your pristine logic leads you. What a double Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jason Gray]

The quoted statement does NOT prove that the person "hates" the SBC. Heck, it doesn't even come close to saying that. You inferred a ridiculous meaning from that. All that quote says was that the person (whoever it was) saw things they do not like in the SBC. Not that they hate the SBC. You drew a faulty conclusion. I suggest some logic classes, my friend.

I could also point out that if we were to use your brand of jumping to conclusions demonstrated here, that we could also conclude that YOU hate the SBC. You dislike the direction of entities, have publicly criticized many leaders and institutions, you don't like the theological trends nor many of the methodological trends. You, in a sense, have looked at the SBC landscape and found many things that you are "unimpressed" within the SBC. True? Well, using your own argument...you hate the SBC.

This has been helpful.

[peter lumpkins]

And you point is, Mark?

All,

Look. ABC had the decency to post the letter they penned to the GBC. Some of you need to cut them a break and stop projecting the idea that they are complete buffoons for the action they took. The litany of continued questions about info which led them to their conclusion is irrelevant here. Frankly this post is not about the process which led to their action but the action itself. This action may speak volumes toward grassroots' understanding of what's taking place in the SBC. Some want to condemn Harrell outright when they would be better off reflecting on deeper questions this action raises.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mark]

Harrell wrote:

I have never had a problem with someone being of a certain theological persuasion. It is their privilege to believe as they feel led but, I cannot support entities which have Calvinism as their agenda and are using it as a tool to take the SBC into a theological model with which ninety-five percent of the people in the SBC disagree. The leaders in charge will not listen to advice and they seem bent on being able to call the SBC a “reformed” convention. Calvinism is not the issue with me but using our seminaries as a breeding ground for an “army” of Calvinists with which to achieve their goals is something I cannot and will not support.

Does anyone have any clarifications as to what Harrell is writing about as reflected in the following questions.

- Which entities that have Calvinism as their agenda? Where is evidence of this found or stated?
- Who are the referenced leaders in charge?
- Where have said leaders attempted to call the SBC a reformed convention?
- What evidence is there that any seminary is being used as a breeding ground for an army of Calvinists?
- What does Harrell mean by the term army?
- What are the goals that said army is attempting to achieve?
- On what basis is it stated that 95% of the SBC disagree with Calvinism?

[Mary]

Why should anyone answer questions about Calvinist behaving badly when every time the bad behavior by Calvinist has been dismissed as some sort of anomly that doesn't amount to anything. Or people are just called liars and "anti-Calvinist" Why would anyone try to dialog at this point? If Calvinist really haven't been behaving badly for a whole lot of years this will be one church and nothing more will come of it, but if Calvinist have been behaving badly and lot's of churches have experienced it and are tired of it and are ready to stand up and fight against this power grab? Gee, I can see why some Calvinist heads are spinning. Imagine what happens if one of the State Conventions decides to designate funds? Is that possible?

[Jason Gray]

Certainly your recognize that there is a difference between (a)observing the SBC and being unimpressed, and (b) "hating the SBC".

Right?

Then again, maybe not. Bias abounds.

[John]

Is this the first time something like this has happened? Did the CR folks do this when the SBTS was seen as a moderate or liberal entity 'back in the day'? Maybe they did, but I have never heard of it. It seems like they just worked to get like minded trustees and presidents elected to turn the ship around. I just wondered if this was a new tactic.

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

First, you have my express permission to think of me as you wish

Second, check the link I gave for an answer to your question “So, which is it?” If you think ABC poses a contradiction, contact them. So far as I know I posed none

Third, I’m not a betting man but if I was, I’d bet my house that Bill Harrell knows whether or not ABC can or “can’t do this.” Pastor Harrell probably holds the record for the number of years serving the SBC EC including chairing it. Nor do you know the rules of the GBC. If you were able to follow the links, you would have discovered this…

Fourth, nor did Bill Harrell talk “out of both sides of his mouth,” unless you show how there is no clear and valid distinction between “someone” holding a particular theological position and “entities” which have Calvinism “as an agenda.”

Fifth, citing Stetzer’s study is notoriously weak since Stetzer did not gather info from SBTS the way he gathered it from the other seminaries. Mohler would not cooperate with the “study.” Hence, Stetzer patch-worked the Southern data. Had Stetzer turned his “study” in at SBTS for a doctoral project, it would have been rejected. Nor would Stetzer release his preliminary control data which guided his “study”. This makes his study suspect. Sorry…

Sixth, one very prominent SBC elite-leader made this statement in 2009:

“I've worked for a lot of Southern Baptist entities. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly and I can't say I'm impressed with the SBC...If I don't see the SBC and my state convention go in the right direction, I will not wait forever to say, 'That's not a good use of my resources.' But I don't think right now is the right time to pull those resources.” (//link)

Oh, yes. Many hate us. Therefore,

Seventh, divide the SBC? Nope. Recognize the divide already existing? You bet. Between those who love the SBC and those who hate the SBC.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

"I think this Church should answer some questions like:..." And just who do you propose should ask these questions, D.R.? What a Georgia hoot :^)

No, this is not a "new low in maturity among pastors and churches in the SBC." Perhaps it is more an example of grassroots SBCers employing the only means at their disposal to crusted-over, out-of-touch elites who are attempting to remake the SBC from the top down.

With that, I am...
Peter

[D.R. Randle]

I think this Church should answer some questions like:

1) Did their leadership meet with anyone at SBTS or SEBTS prior to their decision? If not, why not?

2) Have Harrell or any others at Abilene actually visited either campus recently? If not, how can they make such bold conclusions about these schools and their agendas?

3) What facts led Harrell to conclude that these institutions are a "breeding ground for an 'army' of Calvinists"? (I actually attended SBTS for a short time and I couldn't disagree more with his characterization.) Did they actually investigate the matter or just believe a bunch of bloggers and anti-Calvinists who also have never met with these seminaries' leaders, much less visited these campuses?

4) If indeed this move is historically "unprecedented" for Abilene as Lumpkins claims, then what does that say about their views of cooperation if they were giving to these institutions (particularly SBTS) when they were liberal? Is Calvinism worse than Liberalism in the eyes of Harrell and Abilene Baptist Church?

and finally,

5) If this Church is so concerned with the potential destruction of the CP by societal giving, why would they then take an action that undermines their own concerns and actually does more harm to the CP than helps it (especially if other Churches join in with this silliness)?

I actually think there are a lot more questions that should be answered, but personally I think this represents a new low in maturity among pastors and churches in the SBC. And I am sad to say that this is happening here in my state, which has suffered enough embarrassment from its leaders lately.

[Jason Gray]

Just saying,

Maybe you need to buy a dictionary to look up the meaning of those words.

If you want to disagree with that guy, fine. If you want to disprove his points, great. But your post did neither...and it made no sense, though I am sure you thought it was hilarious.

Just saying.

[Mary]

Peter or others who've been at this for a while, Do you really think there are Calvinist who are absolutely clueless as to the damage done by Al and his army through the years?

It seems like there were years where we all knew of the "agenda" because it was happening to too many churches in too many different areas and the same things were happening over and over and over. Strangers met here and elsewhere on the internet and were all sharing the exact same experiences for it to have been dismissed as coincedence. But now we see these younger Calvinist coming out and acting as if there was never a problem and it's been overexagerated by "libelous" people like you Peter? Really Calvinist only want to just get along with everybody. Now the agenda seems to be to cover up the years of bad acts, the years of damage done to churches and people by the "agenda" to reform.

As a political move - it's going tick off a whole lot of people if they try to act like we didn't live through what we know we lived through. The cover up is gonna push that split that's already evident in the SBC wide open. Unfornately you have some of these people who've been given some Kool Aid and drink it willingly because their idols are selling it and it never occurs to them that their idols are covering their tracks because they were exposed. There are definately people who need to repent in the SBC. They are too busy trying to act like they've never done anything wrong and calling people names who lived through the "reform agenda" and watched many churches go through it.

[Just Saying]

Ben,

Libelous = "I'm afraid he talked out of both sides of his mouth."

Melodramatic = "I don't know you personally but hope as a brother in Christ you are above these sorts of statements."

Gullible = Citing contradictory and flawed social research as If it were truth..

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I'm not trying to attack you personally, but what you have written here is melodramatic, libelous, and a scare tactic. You are driving a wedge deeper, seeking to split the convention. Honestly, you should repent. It's time to see what sort of Christian character you're made of, brother.

Melodramatic = "Is this the beginning of the end of the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention?"

Libelous = "Some among us could care less about [the demise of the SBC] I assure."

Libelous = "Too many today want to change Southern Baptists not because they love Southern Baptists but because they hate Southern Baptists. They seek to change us because they hate us."

Scare Tactic = "If the masses of Southern Baptists do not take their convention back, we’ll be beat, dead broke and busted in 10 years."

Peter, I don't know you personally but hope as a brother in Christ you are above these sorts of statements.

Now for a point of clarification, did Abilene BC:
1) vote to ask the Georgia Baptist Convention to not give any of ABC's CP money to SBTS & SEBTS? Or,

2) vote as a church to stop sending money directly to these two seminaries?

So, which is it?

If #2, then I easily see how they can do this.

If #1, perhaps I'm wrong, but they can't do this. First, all the CP money sent by ABC to the GBC is divided up by the formula set by the messengers to the GBC. ABC can't individually dictate how their CP money is spent. Second, the GBC doesn't send money to SBTS & SEBTS. The GBC collects CP money from the churches, keeps 60% of the CP, and sends 40% on to the SBC. The SBC is the one who then sends 4.88% of the 40% on to SBTS and 3.98% of the 40% on to SEBTS. Again, this formula is determined by the messengers to the SBC, and an individual church can't make mandates on how their portion of the CP money will be spent. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Finally, I read Pastor Harrell's letter. In it, I'm afraid he talked out of both sides of his mouth. He said,

"I have never had a problem with someone being of a certain theological persuasion. It is their privilege to believe as they feel led but, I cannot support entities which have Calvinism as their agenda and are using it as a tool to take the SBC into a theological model with which ninety-five percent of the people in the SBC disagree. The leaders in charge will not listen to advice and they seem bent on being able to call the SBC a “reformed” convention. Calvinism is not the issue with me but using our seminaries as a breeding ground for an “army” of Calvinists with which to achieve their goals is something I cannot and will not support."

If Pastor Harrell's never had a problem with someone being Calvinistic and if Calvinism is not the issue, then why can he not support our more Calvinistic seminaries who are graduating Calvinistic students? Very ironic! It seems that Calvinism is the issue.

If he's worried about seminaries graduating Calvinists, according to the 2006 LifeWay study on Calvinism http://www.edstetzer.com/Calvinism%20and%20Southern%20Baptist%20Church%20Leadership%20presentation.pdf , they found that Golden Gate BTS alumni had the highest percentage rate of Calvinists of the six seminaries. SEBTS was second. SBTS was last. In the 2007 NAMB study of recent graduates, SBTS had the highest percentage rate of Calvinists of the six seminaries. MWBTS was second. SEBTS was last. It sounds like he either needs to add some more seminaries to his "do not support" list or just drop the issue altogether.

[Mary]

well, I was completely suprised! I thought for sure an Alabama church would be the first.

[kschaub]

Ouch, this is sad. Southeastern and Southern are terrific seminaries (as are the others). I have attended Southeastern for years, and I can say, without any hesitation, it's the best school I've ever attended. I hope Abilene had all of the correct information before making this decision.

[Jason Gray]

Man, the irony is dripping around here.

Self-fulfilling prophecy about CP giving.
People promoting CP-only giving, now not doing it.
The "he hate me" model of argumentation.
Creating of an enemy and then the accusation that the supposed enemy "hates the SBC".

This is something else.

[Tim S.]

This is a sad day.

[A. Price]

WOW!!!

[CASEY]

Only the beginning of "accountability in PHOENIX". The Tea Party within the SBC is 'emerging'...................