Moderator: William Thornton
Big Daddy Weaver wrote:The comment thread on this post is incredible.
Clark Logan, Vice President for Business and Finance for the SBC Executive Committee, writes this:The initial blog entry, “BGCT Refusing to Release Lottie Moon Funds, Sources Report,” and some of the subsequent comments have been inaccurate and unfair to the BGCT, the IMB, and the SBC Executive Committee.
1. The BGCT has a consistent history of forwarding funds to the SBC Executive Committee. As shown on the official report of Designated Receipts (of which the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering is a part) released by the SBC Executive Committee for February, the BGCT forwarded over $6.3 million. While the March report shows a “0.00,” the April report shows over $4.2 million (which includes over $3.3 million actually forwarded on March 23 – explained below).
2. It is correct that the official report of Designated Receipts released by the SBC Executive Committee did show a “$0.00” for the BGCT for the month of March. This is why:
• The BGCT, like all state convention partners, forwards both Cooperative Program funds and Designated Funds to the SBC Executive for distribution to SBC entities at least once (and sometimes two or three times) a month.
• As is usual, in March (March 23rd to be exact), the BGCT wired their designated gifts to the SBC Executive Committee in the amount $3,301,826.17.
• As is not usual, the BGCT did not send a remittance form or any paperwork showing how the money it sent should be applied.
• Apparently the implementation of new software at the BGCT complicated their ability to compile and issue the needed distribution report until after April 1. Therefore, even though the SBC Executive Committee was in possession of the Designated Fund sent on March 23, “$0.00” was reported because the proper application of those funds had not been verified by the BGCT.
3. Distribution and reporting of Designated Funds cannot be made by the Executive Committee until the distribution paperwork is received from the state conventions. In the (normally very few) days between receipt of the funds by the SBC Executive Committee and distribution of the funds by the SBC Executive Committee, the funds are invested on behalf of the entities by the SBC Executive Committee and all interest earned is passed on to the entities pro rata. Rarely does the time frame of this delay overlap the last day of the month – which is the day the books are closed and the monthly Designated Receipts report is prepared for distribution to state conventions and SBC entities. In this case, the delay did overlap the last day of the month, and therefore a “0.00” was reported for the BGCT for the month of March. As previously stated, however, the April report includes both the April gifts and the gifts tendered on March 23. For these reasons, any claim that the BGCT “held money” is erroneous.
4. The Business and Finance division of the SBC Executive Committee works closely with the finance offices at all of the entities. Persons in those offices would have knowledge of or opportunity to access all of the above information. Anytime there is a question, I believe all of those offices would welcome the opportunity to respond to any inquiries from interested Southern Baptists. I wish our office had been called about this matter before various erroneous theories were proposed.
Tim Rogers, editor of SBC Today, responds with this:Brother Clark Logan,
If what you report is true, which I accept, I have one question.
Why did the personnel of the IMB tell the trustees and the SBC President that funds were in escrow? Also, would you make public the paperwork revealing that as of 5/20/2009 the report going to the IMB reveals that the BGCT's funds were release from the EC to the IMB?
Blessings,
Tim
Blogger Alan Cross responds to Tim:Tim,
Are you really asking Clark Logan, Vice President for Business and Finance for ExComm to prove to you that he isn't lying when he explained to you in detail what happened?
Come on, Tim. You are better than that.
You guys just need to admit you were wrong and move on. No big deal.
And finally, David Lowrie - President of the BGCT - weighs in:As President of the BGCT, I want to encourage you to remove your post, and to straighten out this mess. The church I serve is a SBC church with a number of IMB missionaries. It is true that we have been working hard to turn walls into bridges to advance the Great Commission around the world.
I too am a blogger, so I know the challenges of getting the story straight. We must be very careful in these days. I believe a fresh wind is blowing for greater understanding and cooperation in the future on Kingdom causes. We cannot continue the stereotypes of the past.
I believe this was an honest mistake. Please remove the post. Clear the reputation of the leaders of the BGCT, and work hard to help us work effectively together in the days ahead.
The stakes are too high for us to waste our time on matters like this. Let's unite to do the work Jesus called us to do. If the Great Commission Resurgence is to be more than a slogan or motto, we must learn to trust each other and work together again.
Sincerely,
David Lowrie
President of the BGCT
Pastor of First Baptist Church of Canyon, TX
The best comment came from "William" (BL.com moderator William? [yes-WT]) who wrote:Someone was wrong on this and it was Barber and SBCToday. The protests otherwise are ludicrous. The headline was a deliberately framed, agressive shot at the BGCT. It should have been checked out.
Go ahead and straighten this mess out with respect to the BGCT before you lose any additional credibility.
I admit that the SBC Today crowd is losing more and more credibility especially in light of their attacks on Wade Burleson for his posts that rely exclusively on anyonymous sources. Tim Rogers just can't seem to fully admit these mistakes and move on. Ironically, this whole conversation concerning a controversial SBC Today post authored by Bart Barber is taking place at Barber's personal blog because SBC Today will not allow comments. So, SBC Today editor Rogers is forced to respond and defend himself at someone's elses blog-home due to their anti-comments policy.http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com
"We do not serve well the causes we say we believe in by ignoring the continuing devastation of fundamentalism running rampant." - Stan Hastey
Sandy wrote:If the BGCT were deliberately delaying or witholding money given by churches intended to be part of what is forwarded to the SBC through the Cooperative Program, there would be a significant cry from within the BGCT to correct the problem. It is not the place of the pastor of a church not affiliated with the BGCT to criticize.
As David Lowrie says frequently, "a fresh wind is blowing." It has become apparent, within the BGCT, that the movement to "stop the spitting contest" with the SBC is gaining ground. Relationships between the BGCT and Southwestern Seminary have thawed. The BGCT is beginning to elect leaders who are demonstrating a willingness to restore the relationships with the SBC, which seems to be the direction most of its affiliated churches want to go. Perhaps some of the SBTC's apologists see that as a problem for their own organization and the influence they have carved out for themselves within it. But then, if we'd been concerned about missions and ministry cooperation all along, instead of turf protecting, we probably wouldn't have two state conventions in Texas.
William Thornton wrote:I admit that the SBC Today crowd is losing more and more credibility especially in light of their attacks on Wade Burleson for his posts that rely exclusively on anyonymous sources."
Sandy wrote: Relationships between the BGCT and Southwestern Seminary have thawed...
Recent days have seen a firestorm erupt over allegations that the Baptist General Convention Texas has escrowed Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds. SBC Today received the information from a first-hand source, to which Dr. Bart Barber took the lead in publicizing the events that transpired. Since the report was made public at SBC Today, with opportunities for dialogue at Praisegod Barebones, administrators of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and of the BGCT have sought to dismiss the report as a technical glitch encountered during a software transition. Thus, instead of the International Mission Board directly receiving the funds, they reportedly somehow ended up in the office of the Executive Committee. The details of this transaction remain sketchy, at best.
What is known is that first, it was reported to a group of IMB Trustees that at least one state convention was escrowing the funds received with designation for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Second, it was later asserted that one convention that was doing so was the BGCT. Third, it was reported that an elected official of the Southern Baptist Convention had commented in an informal setting that this indeed was the case. Having received this information, Dr. Barber wrote “it was reported” that the BGCT has escrowed funds, which remains a factual rendition of the circumstances.
In summary, what is known is 1) It was reported to SBC Today that the BGCT was escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds. 2) The BGCT has a history of its leadership publicly removing support from the SBC, including moral, theological, and fiscal support. 3) SBC Today will report to the best of our ability any further developments in this story.
SBC Today wrote:In summary, what is known is 1) It was reported to SBC Today that the BGCT was escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds. 2) The BGCT has a history of its leadership publicly removing support from the SBC, including moral, theological, and fiscal support. 3) SBC Today will report to the best of our ability any further developments in this story.
peter_lumpkins wrote:William,
I attempted to post my own thoughts on this. I have to agree, this is not pretty. For the record, one blogger who also posted on this and wrote in the comment stream above that he's never taken posts down, etc. got a pop-a-gut giggle from me. Granting for argument's sake, what he says is true, I could easily document, if necessary, some, shall we say, significant alterations of posts, after getting his little fanny paddled really good. For some reason Professor Greg Welty comes to mindThus, I imagine one could easily argue, with a strategy like that, who would ever need to "take something down??
![]()
With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins wrote:Wade,
Sorry, bubba: I said nothing about a post being removed so the "post still stands" retort addresses exactly what? . . .
I consider this episode, inflammatory as it has been, to have been a fluke. Somebody either misunderstood something or made something up. It wasn't me. It wasn't anyone with whom I spoke. We bought it. And with the weight of the IMB behind it, I wasn't in "verify" mode; I was in "publish" mode. I should have verified.
And then I repeated it, although I did so in a careful manner that remains factually accurate. I accurately reported someone else's inaccurate information, and in doing so was careful to represent the information as someone else's data and not as my own first-hand knowledge. Nevertheless, I threw some measure of my credibility behind it. If you believed it because I reported it, then I have done you a disservice. And for that I apologize.
And the entire situation puts me in the bitter-tasting situation of having somewhat wronged an institution that I dislike and owing it an apology. So, to the BGCT, I apologize for not taking greater care in reporting damaging information about you. I will endeavor, whenever criticizing you in the future, to exercise greater caution to stick to the many publicly verifiable items on which we disagree.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests