BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I was struck by the CBF Task Force report recommending that the national CBF and state/regional CBF organizations develop "cooperative agreements" for funding formulas. The SBC has such "cooperative agreements", these are agreements between SBC state conventions and the North American Mission Board, which have for a half century or more specified certain kickback spending from NAMB to the states. They are a problem for NAMB and are being eliminated. It's a long story.

I suppose that the similarity between these cooperative agreements and the ones recommended to CBFers is a similarity in name only.

I'm curious as to what my CBF friends think about the funding recommendations in this report which would have the national CBF and state/regional CBF organizations formulate "cooperative agreements" that would specify a division of funds between them, not only specifying a percent that state/regional bodies would send to the national CBF but also that the national CBF would send back to each state/regional body.

This would be sort of a two-way Cooperative Program - money moving both ways between the national CBF and state/regional CBF.

One things for sure, CBF Task force will not have the personnel problems the SBC has. I remember a pungent comment Mark Baggett made in that regard long about the Samford summitt of Oct 15 1990 With Pressler and Randy Fields and David Montoya.

In the meantime, I do hope Dr. Thornton you have googled the grand Vince Dooley story recently in the Mobile Press Register about his Cousin Stevie; and considered John Pierce recentblog on good Baptists in the pew

Funds should go to where the giver wants them to go. If they are given undesignated other than to the “CBF”, then National CBF and state CFs are free to spread the cash to who best could use them. I would say that that would vary year to year and therefore there should not be fixed percentages one way or another.

Why should you be interested William given your disfavor of CBF.

Y'all gotta quit giving William a hard time. He's no fan of CBF but his observations are worth the read on our happenings...

Now, I agree with Keith in that the giver ought to have much say in where his/her funds go. This new cooperative agreement seems to enhance freedom. For a number of reasons, I see this agreement as being helpful.

HOWEVER, CBF and many of the related organizations still have serious ongoing financial struggles. This agreement promotes freedom in giving. I think it's going to also promote competition not necessarily partnership (could be good or bad).

Truth is, as it stands now, there is only so much "moderate money" so to speak. The number of donors is definitely not growing. The number of participating churches that give money is not a figure on the rise. With that in mind - and in light of this increased freedom in giving - it seems likely that some organizations are going to profit from this arrangement and some are going to suffer.

I must ask though, where's the plan for growth? How will the report - if adopted and implement - contribute to turning things around? Or are we CBFers now accepting that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is going to be much smaller in the future?

The future in any denominational structure is hard to predict, especially in the free church tradition. I think William's questions are valid. The missing element is the set of unknowns that impact directions. CBF needs a shot in the arm. I am not certain that the issues in the present are not in CBF's future, but then we don't know what may ultimately influence this stream.

Stephen, your recommendation was a masterpiece of obfuscation, diversion, and unrelated chatter but I'm always up for genealogy. It is a genuine thrill to visit ancestral homes. The piece on Dooley was interesting. Vince lives down the street from where my parents live - short distance, large value spread, though.

I haven't see Vince since we chatted in Arbys before OSU beat the dawgs. UGA's president just announced his retirement. He and Vince were, uh, not close. When the Bulldog fans wanted to name Georgias football arena, Sanford Stadium, after Vince, the president was asked what he thought of the idea. His reply: "Stadium's already got a name."

I understand what the new system is trying to do. I don't understand how it will work within states that are baptistic enough to allow churches to choose whether cooperative missions funds go to the SBC or the CBF. That doesn't seem clear in the ideas being presented.

I don't think that's really the assumption still, considering that so many graduates of these seminaries go off to serve in ministry roles other than pastor.

In our shadow conversation; I imagine Vince and the UGA prez is a lesser version of the problems Auburn administration had 50 years ago with Shug Jordan andlater Gov Fob James--see Wayne Flynt's Keeping the Faith.

As for obfuscation, I hope you follow Dowles and Price reaction to the upcoming SACS report on Shorter College.

As for the Samford event of October 1990, I helped arrange it and a thousand people showed up. Montoya on same statewith Judge Pressler.

I hope to see Moyers and Pressler; Rove and Randall Balmer on a similar panel before first Tuesday inNovember.

If not them,maybe Charles Pickering, Bama Gov Bentley and Melissa Rogers