The 2013 proposed budget of the Baptist General Association of Virginia is a very revealing document. How we choose to spend our money says a lot about our values.
For those coming to this conversation a bit late, let me provide a quick summary. The BGAV’s proposed 2013 budget cuts partner organizations by about 50 percent while providing a $391,000 increase to Virginia Baptist Mission Board ministries. As you can imagine the partners are wailing, partly because they had no clue a cut of this magnitude was in the works. Mission Board staff (and the budget committee) say the money is needed for new initiatives for the BGAV in church planting, evangelism and discipleship.
Ron Crawford
|
I also want to refer my readers to the Religious Herald website. A letter from former BGAV president Tim Madison and an editorial by Jim White is must reading if one wants to be well informed about this conversation.
While the final interpretation of the merits of the proposed budget will be decided by the BGAV in a few weeks when it meets in its annual session, I want to share a few observations.
The proposed budget reveals a significant failure of BGAV leadership.
All of a sudden we have a mess on our hands, created by a poor process. These substantial cuts are being sprung on us within a month of a BGAV vote. I am well aware of the normal sequence for presenting a BGAV budget; in fact this year, the budget committee gave an additional week of notice about its proposal.
However, a change of this significance should not be sprung on such short notice. In this regard I agree with Madison’s letter, which suggested this budget represents a fundamental philosophical change from those that preceded it.
To add facts, the 1993 BGAV budget provided 37 percent of all stateside dollars to partner organizations; the 2013 proposed budget provides less than 11 percent of stateside dollars to partner organizations. A 50 percent cut to partner organizations is a philosophical change that should have been studied and approved by the BGAV before an implementation was attempted. Our leaders have failed us in that they have not helped the larger body establish priorities in an orderly and input-friendly process. These cuts start on Jan. 1, 2013, less than 60 days after a BGAV vote.
When I teach my next class on “The Life and Work of the Pastor,” I will use the 2013 budget proposal and process as an example of how one should never lead a local church. We can do better than this. The mess we now have is a reflection of less than wonderful leadership.
The proposed budget reveals a profound misunderstanding of the 21st century.
The proposed budget provides an increase of $391,000 to the VBMB for “evangelism, discipleship and starting new churches” (Herald article). Is there anyone who thinks this is enough money for these enterprises? How many churches will be started? What will the additional funds provide for in the area of “discipleship,” over and above what is already being done at the VBMB? In the same article someone suggested these new initiatives will help grow the Kingdom. All for $391,000? $391,000 represents 6.5 percent of the 2011 VBMB allocation. What is going to be transformed with an additional 6.5 percent?
We will not claim the 21st century by cutting Peter to pay Paul; the 21st century requires a fundamental reorientation of how we do things. We will claim the future when we transform 20th-century systems into 21st-century methods.
I visit a few churches from time to time and I hear well-meaning members say, “We can’t keep cut-cut-cutting.” I respond with, “Well, stop cut-cut-cutting and transform.” In the case of the BGAV we need to start asking a fundamental question (which is not being asked now): “What do churches need us to do for them in the 21st century?”
Denominational entities exist for one reason only — to do for churches what they cannot do for themselves. What do churches need us to do for them? This is the “unasked question” and it is the essential question if we are serious about the Baptist future.
I can’t help but see a painful irony in the 2013 proposed BGAV budget; we respond to a decentralizing age by centralizing what we do (moving money from diverse partners to a centralized structure). Do we really think the future will be claimed through centralization? Where has this worked (in the 21st century) in other church organizations and non-profits?
The 2013 proposed budget takes from Peter to pay Paul. This strategy will fail in the 21st century and unnecessarily makes Baptist life very messy.
The proposed budget reveals a flaw in the BGAV budget process.
Is there anyone who thinks the 2013 BGAV budget process has served us well? Let me quickly say, the process used this year was the same as in the past. However, this year it failed to fairly serve all interests in the BGAV. Sometimes flaws in systems are only revealed under great duress. The present budget process has served us fairly well in the past.
The BGAV budget committee serves the interests of all BGAV stakeholders. One can certainly make the case the 2013 proposed budget serves the interests of some partners better than others. We need a system where partners have an opportunity to meet directly with the budget committee.
A lot of good will has been lost with the 2013 BGAV proposed budget. We need to change the system to more fairly represent the interests of vital partner organizations. While a changed system may not increase dollars going to partner organizations it will at least give them a real voice in the process, which they clearly do not have now.
As I write this I have no idea if the BGAV budget committee will change its recommendation. I hope it hears the outcry. If not, I will vote to amend the budget in Roanoke in a few weeks. What has been presented to date is unacceptable for a multitude of reasons.
Ron Crawford ([email protected]) is president of Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. This article originally appeared on his blog.