Who's Drinking What at Southeastern? by Peter Lumpkins

So what's up with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary?  Is there a recently embedded rebel spirit which apparently wants to disassemble the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention?  Somebody thinks it's possible because their water's been spiked...

Dr. Bobby S. "Bob" Terry, President and Publisher of the Alabama Baptist, the state denominational paper for Southern Baptists in the Crimson state, recently wrote a stinging editorial querying just who's been spiking the waterworks at Wake Forest (//link). 

With cutting words, Terry slices their pie :

If you believe in the way Southern Baptists have cooperated for almost 85 years, then you have to be wondering what is in the water in Wake Forest, N.C. From Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, located in Wake Forest, has come a stream of proposals that question the validity and the value of the partnership between Baptist state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)" (//link).

Dr. Terry cites three recent evidences for his unpopular opinion. 

Here we go:

First, a 2007 statement made by the late Dr. Rush Bush, then the academic dean of the seminary.  According Dr. Terry, Professor Bush--a key intellectual for the Conservative Resurgence--proposed churches to write two checks for missions work beyond their local congregation, one to the SBC and one to the state convention.

In effect, Terry argues this proposal, if adopted, would end the relationship between state conventions and the SBC essentially destroying the Cooperative Program. Moreover, in excess of $20 million extra would be funneled back into Southern Baptist's six seminaries.

If correct, pretty sweet, I'd say (for the seminaries, that is).

Second, Dr. Danny Akin "fired the next shot earlier this year in a chapel address on the [SEBTS] seminary campus."  Obviously, he refers to Dr. Akin's public launch for a GCR in the SBC (//link). Quoting the original GCR proposal rather than the diluted one with language cleaned up after a storm of negative reaction (the polished one the SBC actually addressed), Terry reminds readers of Akin's blanket charge concerning all state conventions as “bloated and inefficient bureaucracies with red tape a mile long,” conventions concerning which, according to Dr. Akin, "A disproportionate amount of Cooperative Program dollars (are) being kept... ."

Third, Terry cites director of financial development for SEBTS, Daniel Palmer, as recently charging state conventions with '“skimming” CP dollars that rightfully belong to the SBC.'** 

Well bust by bloated bunion.

Skimming?  Isn't skimming, like criminal?

Ouch!   

That probably connected about as well or worse with state conventions around the country as did Dr. Akin's "bloated bureaucracies" charge. According to Terry, as did Akin with "bloated and inefficient bureaucracies," Palmer dropped his original incriminating metaphor of "skimming." 

Wise. 

Not to mention moral.

Has Dr. Terry got a point concerning the refreshments at SE?  You can be the judge of that!  Read the full editorial here.

With that, I am...

Peter

**Update:  In fairness, Mr. Daniel Palmer logged on and made us aware of his formal apology for employing 'skimming' which created negative nuances not indicative of his genuine purpose (//LINK).  

Comments

[Bob Cleveland]

You bet he does, Peter, and between he & Rick Lance, there aren't better representatives of how things ought to be in the SBC anywhere that I know of.

[Andrew]

While Dr. Terry may have a point, he also alludes to the reasons for why SEBTS' faculty are making these propositions - some state conventions are NOT in line with the original intent of 50-50 split of all funds between state and national causes. Perhaps it takes some uncomfortable press to make the states consider why they do keep the majority of CP money in-state....

[peter lumpkins]

Andrew,

Thanks. First, I don't see at all in Terry's article the reasoning you cite for SEBTS & Co making the proposals: "some state conventions are NOT in line with the original intent of 50-50 split of all funds between state and national causes." This was Terry's historical point but is not a part of the language of those whom he critiques.

Indeed Terry defends AB's record as a 45%/55% split, based on the 1925 model.

Second, Andrew, you curiously assert "Perhaps it takes some uncomfortable press to make the states consider why they do keep the majority of CP money in-state...." Am I missing your point? If you read this article as uncomfortable for state conventions, I think you may need to reread.

In addition, as a Georgia Baptist, I have some input concerning what Georgia does. I have no input into what Alabama does. Alabama Baptists are in control of Alabama monies. Hence, if they sense it right and good to keep X % in the state, that is ABC business. I may not like it but I am at peace with it.

Interestingly, in the Rogers luncheon, the GCR choir sung a clear song concerning percentage giving. According to Drs. Hunt, Mohler, Floyd, and Gilbert, upon being questioned concerning the percentage giving of their churches respectively, each in turn denied percentage a viable measure to gauge concern for the Great Commission. They insisted to do so, "places the CP above the GC."

If this is so, not a single shot can be legitimately fired against state conventions because the conventions are not giving the "proper" percentage to out-of-state causes. What's fair for one autonomous goose is fair for the other.

If individual autonomous churches legitimately decide, under the Lordship of Christ, what's the best CP percentage for them to give--like our GCR quartet insisted--then individual autonomous state conventions possess the same responsibility to legitimately decide, under the Lordship of Christ, what's the best percentage for them to give. Do you not agree?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew]

Peter,

What I meant was that the tendency is that state conventions balk at any national attempts to modify their giving percentages...and they seem to resort to the tactic of "Well, we give more than 50%...if you follow this conveniently constructed, but totally valid accounting technique." Dr. Terry is right to speak in the terms he did, but it sometimes smacks of dismissing the question than actually answering the concern.

You also alluded to what might be a better point for me to make: it is not the states that SEBTS is talking to...it's the churches and state convention messengers that are the target. The state execs. wave their hands, "Pay no attention to the bloated state budget of outdated projects and ineffective ministries..." and try to keep the messengers from asking/demanding equity of giving.

I agree that each church and each convention is autonomous and can decide what percentage is best...perhaps I am tired of people saying they support CP and are all for its promotion, but fail to be in actual compliance with its ideals. Give what you will, but don't clink it at the bottom of the offering plate!

The original recommendations for the CP cuts were:
a) 50-50 split of church offerings between church and state convention (SBC Annual, 1976, p.54) - and we fight over if someone has 10%!
b) 50-50 split of state money, both designated and undesignated funds (http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=240)
c) 50-50 split of domestic and foreign support at the national level (SBC Annual, 1983, pp. 42-47)

If we don't meet these standards, let applaud CP, but not ourselves...we have indeed accomplished much with little, but how much more could have been done? Should we actually need special offerings in August to supplement the mission boards every few years?

These were bold suggestions in 1925, especially when the Great Depression threatened the survival of many small churches. I do find it irritating when people like the GCR quartet try to diffuse the blame by talking about missions money in general or about dollar amounts...either be for CP to the 1925 extent or just be a cheerful giver without the accolades....

[Luke Tolbert]

Peter,

First, you said "Terry reminds readers of Akin's blanket charge concerning all state conventions as 'bloated and inefficient bureaucracies with red tape a mile long,'"...

Did Akin say that ALL STATE CONVENTIONS are this way or are you just inferring this?

Secondly, I have issue with Terry's article because he states "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." Can either of you find a statement or some credible evidence that Akin wants this GCR because it might increase funding for SEBTS?

[peter lumpkins]

Luke,

Thanks. To my recall, Dr. Akin made no specific qualifications pertaining to the conventions he indicted as bb. Indeed his loose language stands, at least in part, as one of the reasons the charge was dropped.

Second, no, I have not looked for a statement Akin made tying him increasing SEBTS funds. No need on my end. I did not imply such was Akin's motive.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Andrew

I agree with much of your statement. A tiny rejoinder, if I may. You write, "it is not the states that SEBTS is talking to...it's the churches and state convention messengers that are the target."

I cannot perceive, given the language used, either SEBTS or GCRTF has been targeting individual churches or believers in the rhetoric employed. Such a curious interpretation of their speeches and words would have to completely ignore or perhaps even skew their natural meanings to prop up a reading like that.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Daniel Palmer]

You may view my response to Dr. Terry at plammer.blogspot.com. My apology for the word "skim" is here: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10661.article.print It should also be noted that I nowhere recommend that we scrap the CP - not at all my desire. My concern is that we spend $1.31 of our CP $ for every person in the US & Canada (far more when looking just at the Southeast), and we spend less than 4 cents for every person in the rest of the world.

[Christiane]

"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"

Could someone explain what this infers?
I am wondering if there is mistrust due to the self-advertised lavish life style of at least one seminary president.

[peter lumpkins]

Daniel,

Thanks for commenting and providing the link (I repaired the link in your original comment & unpublished your additional comment providing a link. Hope that's O.K.).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Daniel Palmer]

It infers that Dr. Terry's editorial does not include an important quotation from Dr. Akin vis a vis Southeastern. Dr. Terry's article is not lacking so much for what it says, though some of that is troubling, but for what it leaves out . . . like the substance of the study that I published, for example.

[Daniel Palmer]

of course, thanks.

[Christiane]

Thank you for your response.
My apologies, if by quoting from that link, I have created a problem for Peter or for anyone.
Christiane

[Luke Tolbert]

Thanks Peter for your response. I will put my cards on the table and say that I am a SEBTS student. I do not know of anyone that disdains the CP or is looking to dismantle it. Personally, I am extremely grateful for the CP which has allowed me to attend seminary very cheaply. I know this same attitude is shared by many of my friends here at SEBTS - we have an amazing education for such a reduced cost.

That said, I believe the frustration from some people lies in the fact that some state convention keep 65% or more of CP funds in state. I commend Alabama's convention if they do only keep 45%, though I am not sure if that is true based on their website (http://www.alsbom.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=36469&PID=630564). Since they do not have their budget available I don't know which is true.

I know in NC, 12.5% of our CP giving goes towards higher education and colleges (some of which are more conservative than others). This compares to the 17% of our CP giving that makes it to the IMB. This is what bothers me and some of my fellow seminary students. We do not want to do away with State Conventions; in fact, we see State Conventions playing a pivotal role in church planting. Personally, I think we just need to be better stewards of our CP gifts and start placing a greater focus on international missions.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Luke,

Could you help me. I am in NC and your %'s are the first I have seen like that. Could you help me understand where you got your % from?

Blessings,
Tim

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Daniel,

You write; My concern is that we spend $1.31 of our CP $ for every person in the US & Canada (far more when looking just at the Southeast), and we spend less than 4 cents for every person in the rest of the world. What would be a good balance that you believe others would feel comfortable with their missions giving going through CP channels? IOW, if we were to spend $1 per capita for those in the world and $0.31 per capita for those in the US and Canada would that make the CP more appeasing?

Blessings,
Tim

[Luke Tolbert]

Brother Tim,

I would be more than happy to provide the source of the information. I took it from the NC Baptist website (http://www.ncbaptist.org/ministries/busi/budget/). On the right hand side of the page, there is a link to the Cooperative Program Budget for 2009. If you look at the .pdf file, you will notice that the smallest amount spent on Christian Higher Education is 12.5% (Plan D has 9.47% but that does not include the 5% that is given to Fruitland in that plan). The largest amount that is given to the SBC at the national level is 34% which, if the IMB gets 50%, would leave us with 17%. Feel free to check me on this because I do not want to be spreading false information.

I would like to say that I am not saying that the NC Convention is spending all of the money unwisely. I have heard many positive things about our state convention and I believe that it performs many important functions. Likewise, Rome was not built in a day and change takes time. I pray that we continue to move forward in our CP funding so that we have a better balance in local, state, national, and international funding like Daniel suggests.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Luke,

Ok, I see your numbers and where they come from. You are correct, I guess that I never looked at it that way. Allow me to ask you the same question I asked Brother Daniel. What % do you feel is adequate for us to send to the IMB through our CP giving?

Blessings,
Tim

[Luke Tolbert]

Tim,

I think you pose an interesting and valid question. It is easy to complain about how things are but we should be able to offer a constructive alternative.

Honestly, I think the question is rather complicated; however, a good goal would be a 50-50 split between the state convention. I would like to have a larger % going towards international missions through the CP, but I think there needs to be a balance between a SBC-level organization (IMB) and the local church. I fear that a greater % might make the church feel like it is outsourcing missions.

In my ideal world, I would say a 50-50 split between the states and the SBC at the national level. However, we need to do more than just reexamine budget sheets. We need to increase involvement at the state level so that there are closer ties at all levels (local, state, and national). International missions is not just the job of the IMB, but it is also the responsibility of the local church and state conventions.

What are your thoughts Bro. Tim?

In Christ,

Luke

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Luke,

I agree that we need to place more missionaries on the field. That placement should take place first in the church. So, let's examine a 50/50 split for the State Convention.

I will take NC because we both relate to the state. We presently give 34% (according to NCBSC Budget) therefore we must increase 16%. According to the figures you pointed us to, there is 12% given to Higher Education. Should we cut any of that? According to your answer above, it seems, you would not be in favor of that. Where should we cut? Salaries in Cary? Well I do not know if you have been keeping up with it lately but those are people that would be without a job, all because we are trying to increase %'s for the SBC. I know the next statement would be if they are not doing a job then they must go. Problem with that statement. Who is going to determine who is and who is not doing a job that is placing missionaries on the mission field? Now, lets look at the other side of this situation. Let's speak about bloated items on the National level. First, how many seminaries do we need that have Great Commission Schools? Second, How many seminaries do we need that have Evangelism Schools? Third, How many seminaries do we need that offer PhD.'s I mean a PhD. is a PhD. whether it comes from Southern, SEBTS, SWBTS, GGBTS, MBTS, or NOBTS. Fourth, Why do entities need their own TV production departments?

I am not saying that these items are not needed but we have been told that there is duplication among the state conventions but no one is willing to look at our national convention. Let's get really real. The Great Commission Task Force had their meeting in Rogers Arkansas at Dr. Floyd's church. It is a beautiful location and is a tremendous facility. However, did you catch what Dr. Floyd said at the end of the meeting to tell everyone they needed to end the meeting? He said, we need to wrap this up because we are having a meeting across the street at the hotel. Now, with the facility that they met in why would a committee need to rent a conference room at the neighboring hotel to hold their meeting? Waste funds? If they rented a hotel conference room to hold their meeting, you better believe it. But, who has called attention to that waste of CP funds?

I believe the question that will need to be answered is a simply one. Why should the states increase to 50% for the national entities to duplicate themselves?

I have not placed this out there to be negative. I am just saying, this is more complicated than increasing to a 50/50 split.

Blessings,
Tim

[Daniel Palmer]

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your question.

I'd like us to get much closer to parity in our missions spending domestically and internationally on a per capita basis. On the domestic side, I've not included all the $$ going to associational missions and spent on churches themselves in the total. To me, it is important to keep in mind that the Great Commission is fulfilled in thriving local churches.

So, over time, I would like to see states in the SE send more funds to the SBC to be distributed to the nations and for the equipping of those who will serve there. When I say, the nations, I mean both in the cities and unreached heartlands of the US and the nations living around the globe.

I say "over time" because a dramatic shift would mean making some draconian personnel changes. I do think we need a paradigm shift in how we think about how the GC is fulfilled. Disciples are made in local churches. Conventions exist to help struggling churches and plant thriving ones. The need out there is greater than it is here.

So, to answer your question. In states with many thriving churches, I'd like to see them move toward keeping in the range of 25-35 percent of undesignated CP (again, over a period of time) receipts for assisting existing churches and planting new ones as population growth necessitates. This would be more of a "hold ground" mode in state to allow for a "take more ground" mode among the nations who have little to no gospel witness. This would not be the case for state conventions in more of a frontier status - they still are working on taking their own ground for the Kingdom.

How these percentages will work on a per capita basis depends upon how quickly and the world population when we get there. Nevertheless, it will bring us closer to parity in the allocation of our missions dollars - I think that better reflects the heart of God vis a vis the nations. His regard for them is not less than or greater than his regard for Christians living in the Southeastern US.

Thanks again for your question. I hope the above serves as a helpful response.

Because He lives,
Daniel

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Daniel,

Thanks for your response. If you could help me understand something because I believe it is at the heart of what we are trying to do. You write; "To me, it is important to keep in mind that the Great Commission is fulfilled in thriving local churches." Can you define for me what would be considered a "thriving local church"?

Blessings,
Tim

[Strider]

This is a late comment but reading the very good and fruitful discussion above has got me thinking. I think that the percentages of giving should climb to the 50/50 mark but why don't they? As Tim pointed out what do you want to cut? In most of our State Conventions the money is largely being spent well. You can't say that about local Associations all the time but the State Conventions have been living in glass houses for a long time and they have had to be pretty frugal about their spending.
To me the big issue is do we believe in the cooperative program or not? It doesn't matter if the State Conventions or the IMB use their money well if people don't believe in what they are doing. For the percentages to change people are going to have to give more- and even in this financial crisis we can. But we wont if we don't believe in what the SBC is all about. That is what always frustrated me about guys who wanted to be SBC President but their churches only sent a small percentage to the CP. I did not/do not think those guys were not mission minded- I assume that they don't believe in the SBC. So I wonder why they want to be President of it? Do they want to change it or do they just want some prestige? Those are ugly thoughts but what else am I to think?
I don't know what the GCR can accomplish but what I hope it could accomplish is that the Churches would believe in what we are doing together and be willing to pay for it. The cooperative program was always a good idea. Followers of Jesus banding together to see His Kingdom come is a GREAT IDEA. But do we really believe that is what is going on? Do we really believe that when our churches send a check to CP that that is what is happening? I pray that leaders will arise who make this true- and then convince us all that it is true.

[Daniel Palmer]

Tim,

Thank you again for the opporutnity to respond. To be on the brief side, I would say that I think much of Dever's work on 9 marks is a good start. The reason I say thriving rather than just "disciples are made in local churches" is because I believe there is always a role for a state convention, even after it transitions from frontier status to more holding territory status. Not all churches will struggle all the time, but some churches will struggle some time (whether a crisis precipitating a benevolence need, a doctrinal issue, needing the wisdom of another church who has already faced a similar issue, etc.)

My point is to again place the emphasis on helping struggling churches thrive and to plant new thriving churches at home and around the globe. The need is much greater outside the SE US than in it for the establishment of such churches. In 1925, 50/50 was likely honoring to God and His great commission. Today, he has blessed us immensely in the SE, and the percentages should reflect that. He has blessed us so the nations may know His Way and His Salvation.

I am not as hesitant as many to cut some programs and positions over the longer term. A state with thousands of SBC churches does not, for example, warrant as many missionaries as a country in Africa or a province in China with almost zero churches.

Again, a paradigm shift brought in slowly. Slowly so we can be Christ like in how we treat those who currently serve in positions that may no longer be the best use of God's resources. It's not a question of "are these things good" (clearly they are) but "are these things best" in light of the fact that disciples are made in thriving local churches and our goal is to make disciples. That is, as best I can tell right now, the principle which should guide our spending and our reallocations going forward.

Thanks again for the opporutnity to dialogue.

Because He lives,
Daniel

[Luke Tolbert]

Bro. Tim,

I have to be brief since I just got in from class and will need to get up at 5:30 for work.

I think your thoughts are quite valuable and legitimate. There is not a simple solution - a 50/50 split will not solve all the problems. It could, theoretically, increase funding for entities that are not spending it wisely.

I think what it comes down to is one question - What is the purpose of the Cooperative Program? However, the answer, as you have aptly demonstrated, is complex and messy. I will be honest and say that if the CP is about the Great Commission, I am not sure that giving 12.5% or more to higher education is helping fulfill that end. I say this having gone to a Christian University, fully realizing that I benefited from the CP giving of another state convention. However, if I have to choose between higher education and missionaries to unreached people groups, I choose UPGs.

You raise another good point - we are not just talking about dollar signs and percentages, but we are also talking about people's jobs. We do not need to be cavalier with the idea that these adjustments can be made painlessly. However, we are called to be good stewards and sacrifices have to be made.

Ultimately, what I know is that our CP giving in NC results in 83% of our funds staying in the state or in the US while only 17% makes it to the IMB. This is going on while I have friends here at seminary that have been told they cannot go to the mission field because the IMB does not have the funds to send them. I consider it a tragedy that we have people willing to go to the hard places, the 10/40 windows, the unreached people groups, but we are spending 83% of our funds in a nation with over 40,000 SBC churches.

So much for a brief reply ;). But seriously, I appreciate this discussion.

In Christ,

Luke

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Luke,

Yes, your response was a little more than brief. But, as one SEBTS graduate, that is what I expect from others educated at SEBTS. :)

Seriously, you need to look at your examples and please understand my response. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say it is about the $$'s a church gives, not about the %. I am not one that believes a set % is needed in order to be considered a good Southern Baptist. However, if all SB congregations cut back their giving to 2% of undesignated funds the 50/50 split will not be enough.

Blessings,
Tim

[Daniel Palmer]

Dear Tim,

The percentages are important because they reflect what we value. For a church who wants to fulfill the Great Commission around the globe, it is difficult when the state retains 55, 60, 65+ percent of the undesignated funds they receive. No one could rightly fault local churches in such states for seeking other ways to get their gifts to the nations.

As an aside, Lottie and Annie should not count toward a state's CP percentage . . . churches designate those funds for those purposes b/c that's where they want the money to go. State conventions should not get credit for the initative of local churches. The argument goes something like this, the more that our churches give to Lottie and Annie, the more the state can keep of the regular, ongoing CP funds and still come out at 50/50. The people in the pew do not give to Lottie and Annie because they want to offset state convention expenses. If the offerings are an offset to the 50/50 calculus, they are no longer truly "special offerings."

I we got to a 50/50 split in the Southeastern US states - not counting Annie & Lottie - this would be a good start . . . I hope we will do even more to get closer to parity in domestic/international spending on a per capita basis.

A 50/50 split would also, I believe, inspire churches to give more because they would know more funds would be systematically, regularly going to the nations and for the equipping of those who will serve there.

Thank you again for the opporutnity to engage in this important dialogue.

Because He lives,
Daniel

[Luke Tolbert]

Tim,

This might be my last comment on this post since I think we have drifted away from the true nature of Peter's commentary (though I have enjoyed our discussion).

I am wondering if we are truly that far apart in what we are advocating. I agree that "if all SB congregations cut back their giving to 2% of undesignated funds the 50/50 split will not be enough." While I too am hesitant to subscribe a certain % to be a good SBC church since that would impinge upon local church autonomy, I think we need to advocate sacrifice. My church does designate 8-9% to the CP (not counting Annie or Lottie) and I think we should be willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

However, that is why I feel the need for a GCR - I do not want to turn away from the CP because I feel that it was quite useful and it helped to advance the kingdom. However, times have changed and there is a growing dissatisfaction in some circles with the stewardship of our money. If the CP formulas do not change to reflect this growing emphasis on international missions and church planting, I am afraid some will start cutting their CP giving. It will be easier cut giving and bypass the CP by using designated gifts, but the ultimate result of such a strategy is the downfall of the CP and a return to pre-CP days (which were not good by any means). Therefore, we need to start having conversations now about how we will change and adapt so that our spending reflects biblical priorities. I fear that if we do not make changes soon then we will soon be past the point of return.