In a departure from the collegial spirit of years past when, “We’re all in this together” was the prevailing attitude during this current economic hard times, Virginia Baptist Mission Board leaders have decided they can no longer live with the stress of less. No one can blame them. We all know what that stress is like. We can all identify with the frustration of not being able to to what we need to do. The proposed 2013 Baptist General Association of Virginia budget, presented in the October 9-10 board meeting at Eagle Eyrie, increases funds to the VBMB. But it does this by channeling money away from virtually every Baptist General Association of Virginia partner. Apparently, it is only the “partners” of the VBMB who should continue to live with the stress of less. In some cases the diminished resources for the partners are extreme. Southern Baptist Convention partners, however, were left untouched.
Jim White
|
While every dollar is meaningful, in the cases of some partners the contributions of the BGAV represent only a small percentage of the total budgets so the impact may be relatively minor. But for other partners the cuts are so massive their very survival is at stake. For the Center for Baptist Heritage and Studies, for example, which receives 97 percent of its total budget from the BGAV, the proposed 47 percent cut will be devastating; as will the 40 percent cut to the Virginia Baptist Historical Society. Other partner ministries will also feel the effects. BGAV contributions represent 6 percent of the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond’s total revenues from all sources including tuition. For the John Leland Center for Theological Studies the figure is 10 percent. Anyone even remotely acquainted with financial management knows these proposed reductions will be very difficult to manage.
The Religious Herald, too, is impacted. In the past, BGAV contributions have equaled about 43 percent of our yearly receipts. The proposed $107,675 reduction from last year is a 50 percent cut and leaves a big hole. In the case of the Herald, we saw the trends in recent years and have anticipated less income. Even so, we were shocked by the amount. As with the other organizations, we have less than 3 months to try to figure out how to cope with a major income hemorrhage. We have been preparing ourselves to seek donations from people who care enough about a free and unfettered press to give in its support.
The fact that times are tough is apparent to all. BGAV/VBMB treasurer Eddie Stratton emphasized that since 2007 BGAV receipts have declined nearly 16 percent. But in that same time period, Religious Herald receipts have declined nearly 30 percent! I don’t have data from other partners, but I suspect their stories would be similar.
Last week, when I received a letter from budget committee chairman David Washburn, and learned of the budget committee’s proposal, I sought the council of my pastor, Jim Johnson. He encouraged me by saying, “All you need is 100 people to give $1,000 and that will make up the difference!” Well, that’s true. How do you feel about being one of the few, the proud, the 100!
But as devastating as the reductions are, what is more dispiriting still is the message this budget sends to partners. I am reminded of a cartoon from an old issue of Leadership magazine. A taskmaster sits atop a massive block of granite being dragged through the desert by dozens of straining slaves. As he cracks the whip, he shouts, “Pharaoh wants you to remember that you are all equally valued members of the team!”
This budget discounts the ministries of BGAV partners. Can it be that the budget committee evaluated carefully and concluded the only ministries worthy of more support are those of the VBMB while in virtually every case those of the BGAV partners deserved less? This stretches the limits of credulity. Moreover, it sends a clear signal that partners are extraneous entities that no longer make a contribution to advancing the kingdom. Partners used to feel like equally valued members of the team. More than that, they were part of the BGAV family. Suddenly they feel more like unwanted step children. This represents a seismic shift in attitudes about what it means to be a part of the BGAV.
But, in truth, the budget committee members are not unreasonable and unfeeling. To the contrary, they are competent, caring church leaders. They must have had some reason to recommend the budget they did. In presenting the figures, David Washburn provided rationale saying, evangelism, discipleship and starting new churches “are at the forefront of what we are trying to accomplish.” He stressed that in trying to provide funding for these important areas some difficult choices had to be made.
I don’t know of any Virginia Baptist who would be against evangelism, discipleship and new churches. But when these new churches get started and take root, of what will they be a part? Can we envision a BGAV that has no intentional means of communicating its heritage, gets all its information from its own promotional arm, has no organizational means of championing religious liberty and has surrendered educating future ministers to others? I hope not!
Starting churches is important. I fully support the efforts. But even during this time of financial shortages, surely a way forward can be found that does not so devastatingly deplete the funds and diminish the spirits of our partners.
To demonstrate that I’m willing to put money where my mouth is, I told the Mission Board members that although I hoped they would encourage the budget committee to reconsider its action and provide additional funding for those partners who stand to be hurt the most by their proposal, the Religious Herald would not ask for anything additional. This may be difficult to explain to Herald trustees, but I did not want what I say or write on this topic to be construed as an attempt to restore our funding. This is about much more than funding.
On the one hand, we need to start new churches. But on the other, if we do not preserve the ministries of the partners, we will burden these new churches with the task of starting them all over again because they are necessary. It isn’t either/or. It’s both/and.
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.