Blogging is a new experience for me. I jumped into this very public medium of communication in response to the urging of friends and colleagues who knew I had a message to share. I have been compelled by my love for the Southern Baptist Convention and passion to see us reach our full potential of reaching a lost world and glorifying our Lord who desires to be exalted among the nations.
I am as vulnerable as anyone, perhaps even more, of expressing an opinion without realizing how it is perceived by others. It is good to be reminded that communication is not what one says, but what the reader or hearer understand you to be saying. I’ve also learned that it is not necessary, and, in fact, is inappropriate to use individuals to make your point.
I made a major mistake in referring to comments made by Morris Chapman to introduce my blog on “Convoluted Priorities.” Inserting that reference as an introduction was an after-thought to my draft on this subject, which had already been written, when I realized Dr. Chapman’s presentation to the State Executives reflected the point I was making regarding different priorities. I was chagrined to find that how this was drafted implied the blog was about Dr. Chapman and insinuated he was not committed to the Great Commission.
I apologize and accept full responsibility for this egregious implication due to letting my passion for this topic not only erode objectivity in writing but to personalize the issue as a perceived attack on a friend and colleague. There is no question about Morris’ commitment to the Great Commission. He has always been a strong supporter of the IMB. His passionate appeal in his resignation announcement for a renewed impetus on evangelism in the local church characterized what has been the priority of his life and leadership.
Also, as president of the Executive Committee it is absolutely essential he give priority to cooperation and the fair proportionate support of every entity. It would be unworthy for him to serve in his position and he would not have given the commendable leadership he has given these 18 years if he were to be partial and show favoritism to any denominational entity at the expense of others.
I was not present when he shared with the State Executives and I based my comments on the Baptist Press article reporting on his statements. I assumed the report was accurate since Dr. Chapman supervises BP. It is not a matter of being for or against cooperation or the Great Commission. Hopefully, we all are advocates of both! Which was the point of the post—whatever is priority determines what we do and whether or not we are willing to change what we do.
Dr. Chapman urged a 50-50 split of CP gifts between the state and national causes which would obviously provide more resources for national and global missions, indicating it would symbolize a cooperative relationship, and we should strive for this ideal. However, other quotes alerted me to the relevancy of the point of my topic and raised concerns.
In speaking against the concept of creating a category of “Great Commission Giving” it was said, “Total missions giving is a worthy measurement of Kingdom involvement, but not of convention involvement.” I believe a change is called for when our convention system does not reflect Kingdom priorities.
In advocating no changes be made to the formula for Cooperative Program allocations, Dr. Chapman said, “To allow giftedness or burden for one of our ministries over another would overwhelm our holistic view of the convention’s ministries.” Then the illustration is used specifically of the IMB. “The IMB receives twice as much funding…as the next largest recipient. Taking into account designations from the local church to LMCO and AAEO and other designated gifts to the two mission boards, they receive 86 percent. This is not in keeping with the evangelistic priority Southern Baptists have long embraced. We should not let the need for more missionaries lead us into a starvation of resources for other Southern Baptist work.”
The theme of Dr. Chapman’s presentation was that “Cooperative Program allocations should not be altered in the absence of an extreme emergency.” My point is that I believe we are in an emergency situation. And the primary issue is: how can we do more to reach a lost world at home and abroad unless we are willing to make some changes in how things are done.
Dr. Chapman and I have had respectful personal discussions on our different perspectives, and I apologize once again for expressing that difference in public statements that would be perceived as criticism against him. I also apologize to the state executives whom I implied shared his sentiments. Several have notified me that they did not agree with the comments while there were others who apparently did not perceive the implications of Dr. Chapman’s position. The point of my post was not about his position, nor the state executives, but about all of us and every aspect of the SBC.
Again, it is not a matter of one or the other. But just like every church and organization has to choose, not between good and bad, but between what is lower and higher priority to fulfill their basic objective, so does the SBC. If the Great Commission is the basic purpose for why we work together as the people of God then some changes are obviously needed. Dr. Chapman is as devoted to the Great Commission as I am to cooperation. Why can’t we make some changes in how we cooperate to more effectively fulfill the Great Commission?
By the way, I will not be making personal references to any individuals in future posts, nor will I allow negative personalized comments about anyone other than me. However, I do want this to be a dynamic dialogue and welcome challenges to my opinion, but let’s keep the comments objective. This is especially important to keep in mind regarding the next post, which is titled “Accountability for Results.” No personalized reference is intended in implying all of us ought to be accountable.
Thank you, Dr. Rankin, for this post.
That was a sincere, Christ honoring apology. Thanks for setting such a godly example. Your post also advanced the discussion by focusing on the crux of the issue: “Is our current situation an emergency?” Aside from the vast lostness of our world that breaks the heart of every passionate Christian, I welcome further elaboration on the existence of this emergency. Specifically, how is our current situation more of an emergency than that which we faced five, ten, fifteen or twenty years ago? Has there ever been a time in Southern Baptist life when the emergency situation calling for this allocation change did not exist, and if so, when? Answers to these questions will help me understand the reallocation proposal more fully.
Thank you, Dr. Rankin, both for your apology to a colleague and to clarifying what you originally were aiming at in your post. You may be new to the blogging world, but you’ve obviously matured much faster than many out here!
Dr. Rankin,
First, thank you for your apology. It takes a big man to do something like this. I know in the blogging world I have had to do the same thing from time to time.
Second, something in your statement caused an eyebrow of suspicion to be raised. If you did not mean it that way then please let us know. You said; I assumed the report was accurate since Dr. Chapman supervises BP. This statement gives two impressions. First, that the BP report was not an accurate reporting of what Dr. Chapman said at the State Exec. meeting. Second, that BP is not a news agency but a Public Relations agency that releases news items much like the Public Relations branch of the IMB.
Could you help clear up that statement?
Blessings,
Tim
Thank-you for this post, Dr. Rankin
Let me add my thanks as well. In an evnironment of difficult choices it is encouraging to know that differing perspectives are allowed. As an observer from a distance to this process I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness. I have never met Dr Chapman, but understand him to be a caring, compassionate, committed believer and I thank God for leaders such as the both of you. Your personal examples have been an encouragement to me as a pastor of a small SBC church in the Northwest.
No, I wasn’t questioning the veracity of BP, Tim. I added that to emphasize that my perceptions were based on the truth of what I read. However, I readily acknowledge that Dr. Chapman may have meant something other than what I perceived him to be saying, but I did not want anyone to think I was putting words in his mouth because I was not present to hear his actual remarks.
Thank you for your apology to Morris Chapman. At the same time, I urge you not to let this bump early into your blogging initiative dissuade you from being as frank and clear as possible — always amiably of course!
Dr. Rankin,
Thank you for responding. So I can have it straight in my own mind. You are telling me that the various quotes in paragraph #9 above is what you perceived to be Dr. Chapman’s lack of concern for the Great Commission? Or, was it his illustration of the IMB that caused you to feel he was more interested in cooperation than he was in fulfilling the Great Commission?
Thank you for your leadership in this and other issues we face as a convention.
Blessings,
Tim
thanks Dr Rankin for clarifying and apologizing. I have to confess that I have admired both you and Dr Chapman for some time. It is an honor to serve with you via IMB; we have been serving in a different country for ten years now. I do hear your heart cry regarding priorities. It troubles me deeply that we continue to spend (tithes/offerings in our local churches) a very imbalanced amount of money trying to reach the lost of USA and service/maintain our church facilities & church staffs compared to the spending trying to reach the staggering number of lost people (who are increasingly good soil in the context of Mark 4:3-20)around the world who don’t have even the fading echo of Christendom we have in North America. I believe you are on target and appreciate your candor and heart. Your labor is not in vain!
Nice. Thank you for making your apology public, shows a lot of character and humility. Looking forward to your email.
For the record, the Bob Allen posting the first comment is not the Bob Allen who writes for Associated Baptist Press. That would be me.
FWIW, I have been surprised by this whole dust-up. When those men in 1845 organized for the purpose of “eliciting, combining and directing the energies of the whole denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the gospel,” I doubt that any of them envisioned a system where three cents of every dollar raised in the churches is spent for foreign missions.
That’s the point I thought Dr. Rankin was trying to make in his remarks to IMB trustees and, turf wars notwithstanding, I don’t see why anyone would take offense.
This is the other Bob Allen — the one who does not write for Associate Baptist Press. I’m the one who lives in Kenya. It always catches me off guard when I see my name attached to something that I didn’t write.
I appreciate my namesake reminding us of the original statement of purpose for the SBC.
For the record, my name is not Bob Allen.