So long, Tom Eliff

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby William Thornton » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:
William Thornton wrote:NAMB requires that new churches be reported with their name, address, name of pastor. This wasn't done in the past and states gave a number.

I don't see much of anything different in Eliff's tenure, nor anything amiss. All field people I have had contact with (several,not scads) like him. He hasn't had a high profile for years and years.


Ed: And what sort of systematic follow up is there for the list of Church names, and address and the name of the pastor" What about an address and phone number for the pastor? Who does the reporting? And is that for all new churches or just the ones getting NAMB assistance? Are there minimum requirements for thee pastor and or staff. And where is this list published?


Ed, you have a computer and internet access? You could find out some of this yourself.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10396
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Ed Pettibone » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:59 am

William Thornton wrote:
Ed Pettibone wrote:
William Thornton wrote:NAMB requires that new churches be reported with their name, address, name of pastor. This wasn't done in the past and states gave a number.

I don't see much of anything different in Eliff's tenure, nor anything amiss. All field people I have had contact with (several,not scads) like him. He hasn't had a high profile for years and years.


Ed: And what sort of systematic follow up is there for the list of Church names, and address and the name of the pastor" What about an address and phone number for the pastor? Who does the reporting? And is that for all new churches or just the ones getting NAMB assistance? Are there minimum requirements for thee pastor and or staff. And where is this list published?


Wm: Ed, you have a computer and internet access? You could find out some of this yourself.


Ed: William I can find Lifeway cumulative stats but as I read the analysis it seems they are still totals reported nothing about any system of verifying those reports. I did note that baptisms and membership where down again last year even while the number of churches where up a couple hundred.

By The way, you could have given me the URL which for those interested is http://www.lifeway.com/Article/news-201 ... ile-report
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11163
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Sandy » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:08 pm

I'm working on a week-long project here in Pittsburgh this summer that will involve two NAMB appointed church planting personnel, four local church plants, and four church groups from out of town who will bring high school and college kids to work during the week. I'm sure they can fill me in on their reporting procedures, and the reliability of the numbers.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Joseph Patrick » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:38 am

From Joseph Patrick...

Ed, Sandy, Flick, Fox and William, allow me to apologize for something that I do not like to see, I. e. a posting then the original poster goes away for a week or more...MY BAD.

Sandy asked for some indication that the statistics might not be accurate... looking at the IMB website, Fast Facts:
Number of Personnel on the field 4826 (not all are career missionaries, mind you).
Number of church starts in 2013: 6192
Number of Baptisms in 2013: 114571

Now, at any one time one fourth of the personnel (about 1200) are on state-side assignment, leaving 3626 on the field. This is not excluding those in support roles (treasurers, administrators, etc.) or missionaries in hospitals or schools. So by using these figures, each missionary started 1.75 churches last year and each missionary on the field baptized 31 persons. I just find that these statistics are a little over the top.

Now, as to accomplishments of Tom Eliff, I admit to being too judgmental. I was looking at his three predecessors and expecting like innovations, when maybe his mandate was to "Hold us together until we find someone else." If so, he did that. I still hop-e that someone who is a recognized missiologist is appointed as his successor.
When Bill Clinton lied, no one died...
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Sandy » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:06 pm

Joseph Patrick wrote:From Joseph Patrick...

Ed, Sandy, Flick, Fox and William, allow me to apologize for something that I do not like to see, I. e. a posting then the original poster goes away for a week or more...MY BAD.

Sandy asked for some indication that the statistics might not be accurate... looking at the IMB website, Fast Facts:
Number of Personnel on the field 4826 (not all are career missionaries, mind you).
Number of church starts in 2013: 6192
Number of Baptisms in 2013: 114571

Now, at any one time one fourth of the personnel (about 1200) are on state-side assignment, leaving 3626 on the field. This is not excluding those in support roles (treasurers, administrators, etc.) or missionaries in hospitals or schools. So by using these figures, each missionary started 1.75 churches last year and each missionary on the field baptized 31 persons. I just find that these statistics are a little over the top.

Now, as to accomplishments of Tom Eliff, I admit to being too judgmental. I was looking at his three predecessors and expecting like innovations, when maybe his mandate was to "Hold us together until we find someone else." If so, he did that. I still hop-e that someone who is a recognized missiologist is appointed as his successor.


What "innovations" were instituted by Eliff's predecessors? And what would you like to see developed that isn't already being done?

I doubt you can provide documentation that the stats are "over the top." I think we're well past the time where the missionaries did all of the church planting and baptizing. I think most Baptists, including those who know missionaries and their families personally, and those who have spent some time on a mission field, are familiar with the response that is received in many places around the world, and expect that the statistical information will reflect that advance. I know missionaries who serve in places where baptizing new converts and starting new churches is like setting a torch to dry brush, where they can barely keep up with training small group leaders for Bible studies and new congregations that spring up, and places where years of missionary presence has barely sustained a small, struggling church where baptisms are as rare as eclipses of the sun.

If you don't trust the stats, stop supporting the organization, and get out. Otherwise, you are supporting people you don't trust, who you think are liars.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Joseph Patrick » Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:02 pm

From Joseph Patrick...

Sandy said..."If you don't trust the stats, stop supporting the organization, and get out. Otherwise, you are supporting people you don't trust, who you think are liars." First, I do no longer give to Lottie Moon or to the cooperative program. There are some IMB missionaries who are doing very good work (but not baptizing 30 a year) to whom I make direct deposits to their state-side accounts. I do this because I can not always be sure that gifts I give always go to the right person.

Baker J. Cauthen inaugurated Bold Mission Thrust, Keith Parks started the non-resident missionaries and strategic planning, while Jerry Rankin concentrated efforts on unreached people groups, eliminating geopolitical mission organizations.
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Sandy » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:34 am

If you're going to support just the missionaries you pick and choose, by giving to their individual stateside accounts, you might as well not support them at all, since they have agreed and are committed to serve under the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon offering. It seems disrespectful to be critical of the mission program that the missionaries you are selectively choosing to support are serving.

Basically, since the mid-80's, there's been a small but vocal group of ex'SBC'ers who have pointed fingers and made accusations about inaccuracy in statistical reports and "not knowing where the money is going." I call that sour grapes, especially since I've never seen any proof to substantiate those allegations.

I'd rather see my money go to a missions agency that is completely and fully accountable than to an organization that won't disclose how much donor money goes to help their coordinator support two homes and a weekly commute via commercial airline.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby William Thornton » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:55 am

Joseph Patrick wrote: There are some IMB missionaries who are doing very good work (but not baptizing 30 a year) to whom I make direct deposits to their state-side accounts. I do this because I can not always be sure that gifts I give always go to the right


This needs some explaining, since there is some policy about IMB personnel not having side streams of income.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10396
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Joseph Patrick » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:05 pm

From Joseph Patrick...


Joseph Patrick wrote: There are some IMB missionaries who are doing very good work (but not baptizing 30 a year) to whom I make direct deposits to their state-side accounts. I do this because I can not always be sure that gifts I give always go to the right

William wrote: "This needs some explaining, since there is some policy about IMB personnel not having side streams of income."

Anyone is able to donate to the IMB and designate a recipient but some have indicated that it might not all make it to the designated target. Also, by designating a gift through the IMB it helps the bottom line in reports (which have been rather anemic in the past). While the IMB may not encourage direct giving, how can they prevent me from giving directly? And if the individual missionary I donate to wants to share that with the IMB, I can accept that.
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:43 pm

Sandy wrote:If you're going to support just the missionaries you pick and choose, by giving to their individual stateside accounts, you might as well not support them at all, since they have agreed and are committed to serve under the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon offering. It seems disrespectful to be critical of the mission program that the missionaries you are selectively choosing to support are serving.

Basically, since the mid-80's, there's been a small but vocal group of ex'SBC'ers who have pointed fingers and made accusations about inaccuracy in statistical reports and "not knowing where the money is going." I call that sour grapes, especially since I've never seen any proof to substantiate those allegations.

I'd rather see my money go to a missions agency that is completely and fully accountable than to an organization that won't disclose how much donor money goes to help their coordinator support two homes and a weekly commute via commercial airline.


Ed: Sandy Mrs. Paynter is a significant part of a two income family. She flies all over the country as a part of her job. Would you prefer we lease a private jet? TIC
I contribute to CBF and I am not complaining. How long has it been since you contributed to CBF?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11163
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: So long, Tom Eliff

Postby Sandy » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:38 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:
Sandy wrote:If you're going to support just the missionaries you pick and choose, by giving to their individual stateside accounts, you might as well not support them at all, since they have agreed and are committed to serve under the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon offering. It seems disrespectful to be critical of the mission program that the missionaries you are selectively choosing to support are serving.

Basically, since the mid-80's, there's been a small but vocal group of ex'SBC'ers who have pointed fingers and made accusations about inaccuracy in statistical reports and "not knowing where the money is going." I call that sour grapes, especially since I've never seen any proof to substantiate those allegations.

I'd rather see my money go to a missions agency that is completely and fully accountable than to an organization that won't disclose how much donor money goes to help their coordinator support two homes and a weekly commute via commercial airline.


Ed: Sandy Mrs. Paynter is a significant part of a two income family. She flies all over the country as a part of her job. Would you prefer we lease a private jet? TIC
I contribute to CBF and I am not complaining. How long has it been since you contributed to CBF?


You're welcome to keep doing that, for as long as it lasts. There's a difference between "flying all over the country as part of your job," (though I have my doubts about the necessity of doing that being part of the job of the "coordinator" of an organization consisting of a very small, shrinking handful of churches that is husbanding a dwindling annual budget) and providing the perk of being able to maintain two residences and make a weekly commute by commercial airline. You're welcome to support that with your money, and I am very glad that my missions giving, which represents a personal sacrifice, isn't going to pay for perks for the privileged. Even if CBF were willing to disclose how much that costs, I wouldn't support it, and I would guess that, as its annual giving continues to shrink, with regular budget cuts now an annual ritual, it is going to be harder to sell that kind of expense perk to an increasing number of its supporters.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6171
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Previous

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sandy, William Thornton and 2 guests