Church

Preparing for Lottie

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

As Thanksgiving arrives, so does the time of planning for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Without a doubt, this is my favorite time of the year. The LMCO is our yearly missions offering that supports the work of our Southern Baptist missionaries around the world. One encouraging part of this offering is that every dime collected goes directly to the mission field. This offering is especially close to my heart. It’s not because I am a pastor. Over the past twelve years, I have been able to be part of six IMB work/witness teams that have worked in Honduras and Nicaragua with three different missionary couples. I have been able to see how the money collected through the LMCO is used on the field. Our missionaries are very mindful of the sacrificial giving back home that supports their calling to a specific group of people. Not only are they mindful of the giving back home, they are incredibly careful as to not waste any of it. They stretch every penny to get the most out of it for ministry. Having seen this first hand, I can with all of my heart champion the cause for their support and the continuance of God’s work around the world through them.

I am excited about this year’s events at Port Royal Baptist as it relates to the LMCO. Our missions leaders (of whom I am proud of) are planning an inspirational and educational missions study on Wednesday, December 2nd to showcase the area of this year’s study: North Africa. Also, during our family night supper that night, we will have an international menu made up of the foods from our study region. I am looking forward to sharing a sermon series on missions that will continue through our collection date.

The theme for this year’s offering and study is Whose Mission? Who’s Missing? Two great questions. The week of prayer that has been set aside for this year’s offering is December 6th-13th. December 13th is that date we have set aside to collect our offering. Our goal for this year is $3500. I believe that we as a church can meet this goal. I pray, for the sake of our missionaries, that we go above and beyond. Allow me to encourage you to be involved in the missions study, the week of prayer, and finally the giving toward the LMCO this year.

Worth Repeating

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

“Missions makes this point: it is not about us and our preferences. It is about his mission and the fact that he sends us. We want to practice our preferences. We want things to be the way we like them. But God wants us to be on mission with him, to be sent to some group of people somewhere, and to minister in a way that meets their needs, not promotes our preferences.”

Ed Stetzer, Breaking the Missional Code

Track of Cooperative Program Gifts

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

In yesterday’s post, I made several observations relating to the Baptist Press article on the budget shortfall at the IMB. Due to these shortfalls, there may be delays in some missionaries arriving on the field. One of the observations I made was that I believe it may be necessary to change the percentages of Cooperative Program giving to allow more funds to arrive on the mission field. The Cooperative Program is the Southern Baptist’s unified giving program for funding missions that has been in place since the early 1900’s. The CP is about percentages. The local church designates a percentage of the undesignated receipts to be given to the CP through the state convention. The state convention then designates a percentage (based on messenger vote) to retain in the state and a percentage to forward to the SBC for the mission boards, seminaries, and other entities. It is along these lines of designated percentages that funds make their way to our missionaries.

The South Carolina Baptist Convention retains 59.56% of CP dollars coming from the local church and forwards the other 40.44% to the SBC. It is best to look at this through a real-life example. Let’s say that a church gives $100 to the CP in the state of South Carolina. 59.56% of that $100 stays in the state. This percentage is broken down as follows:

30.4% – South Carolina Baptist Convention Ministries
25.56% – South Carolina Baptist Institutions
2% – Womens Missionary Union
1.6% – Church Staff Retirement Plan

40.44% of that $100 is forwarded to the SBC. The SBC has a consistent distribution plan for all CP dollars that are collected from the state conventions. Here is that plan:

50% – International Mission Board
22.79% – North American Mission Board
22.16% – Six Seminaries
3.4% – SBC Operating Budget
1.65% – Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission

The local church’s gift of $100 at the SBC level amounts to $40.44. The gifts, at their final dispersed amount, look like this: International Mission Board ($20.22), North American Mission Board ($9.21), Six Seminaries ($8.96), SBC Operating Budget ($1.37), Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (.66).

In my opinion, here in where the answer rests. It is not so much as the amount the church itself sends, it has to do with the amount that the state keeps. Now, I understand that each state, including our state of South Carolina, have ministries and programs the leadership deem important and worthy of Cooperative Program dollars. When it comes to the funding of missionaries where their only source of support comes from the local church, through the state convention, can’t we do better? Again, in my opinion, I believe we will see a recommendation come from the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force in June of 2010 relating to this area of CP percentages. Listed below is what other state conventions retain/send to the SBC as a matter of comparison.

Florida Baptist Convention  (60%,40%)
Georgia Baptist Convention  (58.6%, 41.2%)
Alabama Baptist Convention  (58%,42%)
Mississippi Baptist Convention (66%,34%)
Hawaii Baptist Convention  (69.4%, 30.6%) 
Tennessee Baptist Convention (58%, 42%)
California Baptist Convention (72.1%, 27.9%)

Budgetary Shortfall at IMB to Affect Programs and Personnel

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

A recent article in the Baptist Presss reported the trustees of the International Mission Board meeting in Shreveport, LA this past week adopted the 2010 operating budget. During this adoption process, the trustees learned that it would be necessary to move 7.5 million dolars from a contingency reserve fund in order to balance the budget. This action was necessary because revenue is expected to be lower than expenses in 2010. When you couple this with the fact that the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering came in under the national goal, it paints a sobering picture.

As a result, the IMB will be cutting back or restructuring two programs and possibly losing up to 600 positions. One of the programs being restructured is the Masters Program. The Masters Program is a program that offers the opportunity to those 50 years or over to serve overseas for a term of two or three years. Part of the restructure will call for those in the Masters Program to produce part of their own support, while the IMB provides logistical support. About the reduction in staff, the BP article goes on to say, “the drawdown in the missionary force during 2010 will be accomplished through natural attrition, completion of service, retirements and limiting appointments , not by recalling any personnel, the trustees were told” (emphasis mine).  It appears that missionaries will not be coming off the field, but there may be a delay of new missionaries getting to the field. 

I want to make a few observations here:

1. In regards to the Masters Program. I don’t feel that those who are appointed to this program (or any other IMB missionary service program) should have to provide their own support. I believe it is distracting to and detracts from their work on the field. I would not be in favor of them, or any other IMB missionary having to leave the field in order to come home,drum up financial support then return to the field. It is counterproductive.

2. Gordon Fort, IMB VP for Global Strategy said further in this article, “Because economic realities are forcing IMB to retrench its efforts, the organization must delibrately plan to have fewer missionaries — with implications for a lost world that should distress Southern Baptist church members.” There seems to be a mentality creeping into mission boards that is already in our corporate world today. That thought: do more with less. There is no way that you can reach more people, in more countries, in more languages, through more cultural barriers, with less personnel. I just can’t believe that. How can the IMB and the SBC justify one one hand our current population growth and on the other, as Fort says, “the organization must delibrately plan to have fewer missionaries”?

3. I believe somewhere along the line from the church to the state convention to the IMB there needs to be an adjustment to the Cooperative Program percentages. Fort went on to say, “When Southern Baptists collected $11.1 billion in offering plates in 2008, accoring to denomination’s Annual Church Profile, and 2.7% “finally arrive to support the vision of reaching a lost world, and when [Southern Baptists] are structuring ourselves in a way that guarantees we will fail in our mission, it just shouldn’t be.” I tend to  agree. In my opinion, we have a structure problem. Southern Baptist churches decide what percentage of their undesignated offerings will be given to the CP through the state convention. The state convention then decides what percentage of those gifts will remain in the state and what percentage will be forwarded to the SBC mission boards and other entities. In tomorrow’s post, I will show how much actually makes it to the IMB from the church level.

I find articles and stories like these tragic. In a day where the population is growing and anvenues are opening up for the gospel to be shared, the worst thing we can see is a lack of personnel to meet the growing need. What can we do? We can pray. We can pray the financial barrier will be removed and our missionaries who are waiting can hit the ground running.

Opening Doors

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

This past Saturday we held our annual Fall Festival at PRBC. This was my first at Port Royal. I was very impressed . The events of the night were well put together and a smmoth flow of all events existed. Our festival included children’s games, face painting, cake walks, a trunk-or-treat, a chili cook-off, and a teenage scavenger hunt modeled after the television show The Amazing Race. Oh yeah, lots of candy. I believe that events like this one are important to the life and health of the church. We had two reasons for hosting this event:

1. To give families a safe alternative to the traditional Halloween activities.

2. To provide an entry point into thhe church that is non-threatening.

The second is more important that the first. We can’t expect a person who is not already part of the church body to know how the church works. It is events like this one that gives a person a chance to take a look at the church outside of a normal worship service.  An opportunity is given to make connections with others so that when they do visit a regular service, some barriers have been removed. These events help the unchurched to answer the question,”How do I get in?”

Saturday we had the opportunity to talk with guests who do not attend church at all. Once guest, along with her two children said they were driving by, saw the sign, and stopped. She later told me they were not involved in a local church. Bingo. That is the reason we plan and labor over events like these. It is not for us, it is for them. We need to open as many doors as possible. I want to thank everyone who planned, decorated a trunk, cooked, and manned a game booth. Your efforts made Saturday night a success.

Great Commission Resurgence Task Force

/ Steven Ruff / 1 Comment

At the SBC Annual Meeting in Louisville of 2009, the messengers voted to establish what has come to be known as the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. The genesis of this task force was a chapel message shared by Dr. Danny Akin at Southeastern Seminary. He and SBC president Dr. Johnny Hunt worked together to draft the Great Commission Declaration. A motion was made by Dr. Al Mohler for the convention as a whole to respond to this declaration. Subsequently, Dr. Hunt appointed the members to this task force. The purpose of this task force is to study the ways in which the SBC and its entities (seminaries, agencies, boards, etc) can better carry out the Great Commission. They were asked to bring these recommendations to the messengers of the SBC Annual Meeting in June 2010. The make-up of this task force is rather diverse. It is made up of twenty-two members ranging from pastors to (2) seminary presidents (Southeastern and Southern) to state convention executive directors.

The work before this task force is great. They have been charged with taking a hard look at the SBC and determine what can be done that will allow more effectiveness in carrying out the Great Commission. This is harder than it sounds. Here is the problem the task force faces, as I see it. Each SBC entitiy, agency, and seminary make their own decisions and cannnot be directed to change the way they operate or change their structure. Only messengers can direct this type of action. If the task force finds that a particular agency would be more effective by changing its structure, they can only reccommend the change. Their recommendations are non-binding.

Further complicating their work is the recent resignation of the president of the North American Mission Board and the announced retirement of the preseidents of the International Mission Board and the SBC Executive Committee. The leadership of our mission boards will be critical in our continued efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. Effecting significatnt change across the SBC will be alot like stopping a fully loaded freight train. It is no easy task. The SBC has been around for ovr 150 years. There is alot of tradition. There is alot of programming in place. In my opinion, there is duplication of some ministries and programs across national, state, and associational levels that do not make the best use of personnel or Cooperative Program monies. Rumors have circulated as to what the task force will do. A casual reading of state baptist newspapers show these. Some are saying that one of our seminaries will be closed. Some are saying that a merger of the North American Mission Board the International Mission Board will be recommended (big mistake). Others are suggesting that an overhaul of the Cooperative Program will be recommended. I don’t know. The task force chairman (Dr. Ronnie Floyd, Pastor, FBC Springdale, Arkansas) and the SBC president (Dr. Johnny Hun,Pastor, FBC Woodstock, Georgia) have been out front and proactive in putting rumors to rest and sharing the purpose of the task force.

Why is this important? Why does this matter? First, I am a Southern Baptist pastor leading a Southern Baptist church. I believe in the SBC and its commitment to missions, doctrinal integrity, and cooperation. Second, the latest research shows that nearly 89% of all SBC churches are plateaued or declining. It is the right time, as I see it, to take a look and determine if we have put too much focus on programs and structure and not enough focus on people. If it is found that we would be better able to reach people with a restructure or realignment, I am in favor. Third, I believe in the Cooperative Program. The CP is the best vehicle for funding mission work here and around the world. As we give collectively through the CP, we are helping to fund missionaries, train and equip future leaders at our seminaries, and provide resources for church planters to birth churches in places and among people where no church exists. Yes, the work of this task force is important. What this task force recommends and suggests will have an impact on us for years to come. I feel the best days for our SBC are ahead. I am excited to lead our church to do our part in carrying our commission. Pary for this task force.

Reflections on Sunday

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Yesterday was wonderful day at Port Royal. The day started off with our Sunday School Teachers/Workers  Meeting. This was the first meeting that I have had with our teachers since arriving at Port Royal. I was encouraged by the 41 workers who came out early to breakfast and to be involved in the planning and work necessary that will lead to a healthier Sunday School. I am very proud of our Sunday School workers.

The morning worship service  was moving. The music was inspirational the our adult choir special was amazing. At the end ofour service, we had the opportunity to welcome three new members to our fellowship, one young couple and one young man.  It is always exciting to see people get connected to the church body. There were those present who are looking for a church home and wanted to know more about Port Royal. Their interest in encouraging. For yesterday I am thankful for the encouragement we were able to give, the ministry we were able to carry out, and the lives that were touched.  God is most definitely good.

Moving from Reactive to Proactive

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

Several months ago, as part of a pastor’s accoutability group, I read Thom Rainer’s book, ‘Essential Church? Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts.’  The book is built around a study that found, according to Rainer, that “more than two-thirds of young churchgoing adults in America drop out of church between the ages of 18 and 22”. I have heard numbers similar to these often over the past several years. This is heart-breaking to me. To think that adults have dropped out of church at a time of major life-changing decisions breaks my heart. I was not surprised by this research. All “professional” church people know that our churches have back doors that we need to close. The inability for churches to keep and connect people who come in the front door only encourages them to slip out the back door. Although I was not surprised by the number or age of churchgoing adults leaving, I was surprised a little by the reason. Rainer wrote, “Most dropouts are not leaving because they no longer want to identify with organized religion. Dropouts do not all question their faith. Few are angry with or have stopped believing in God. These dropouts don’t completely depart from their faith. They rather part ways with the church.” 

What are we not doing as the church? As a pastor, the idea of people “dropping out” of church disturbs me. The thought of people “dropping out” also resonates with teachers and those in the school systems. I believe it disturbs teachers to see kids “drop out” of school. I have noticed something about the school system however. They tend to be proactive in their efforts to curb the drop out rate. I believe our efforts as a church should be proactive as well. We are guilty of trying to develop a plan or strategy to get them back rather than keep them in the first place. God has called us to minister to people. We can’t do this if they are no longer here. Let’s begin the process of closing the back door and keep the people God has given to us. I don’t have all the answers. I know we can do this together as a church. A quote from a former dropout, in my opinion, sums it up perfectly. “It should be harder to leave a church than to join a church.” I agree.  

Surprising Insights : Conclusion

/ Steven Ruff / Leave a comment

The second part of this book describes the leader of the church that reaches the unchurched. A great deal of attention is given to to the leader and to the subject of leadership. Although the pastor is referred to often, the principles can be transferred to anyone in a leadership position. This is especially true of the chapter that covers what makes the leader tick. The following is a six-point profile that is painted of the unchurched-reaching leader. First, the leader had tenure. The average tenure of a pastor in America (all denominations), according to Rainer, is 3.8 years. The average tenure of an unchurched-reaching pastor is 11.8 years. As I see it, tenure is vitally important. It is with tneure that that a leader earns the confidence of the people and then the right to take then where he believes God is leading. Second, formal education was present. The majority of these leaders were seminary trained. Third, passion marked the life of the leader. Passionate was the word used to describe their attitude toward the church. Fourth, reading was imporant. These leaders were avid readers and were always seeking to learn something new. Fifth, preaching was fundamental. Sixth, these leaders were overwhelmingly conservative in their theology.

Leaders are not perfect. I don’t know anyone who is. In one of the chapters, Rainer included research that both surprised me and encouraged me. He listed the top twelve strengths and weaknesses of the unchurched-reaching leaders. These strengths and weaknesses are the result of questions asked of the leaders themselves. I want to share the top six in each category.

Strengths of the Unchurched-Reaching Leader

1. Ability to Cast Vision

2. Sense of Humor

3. Work Ethic

4. Persistence

5. Leadership by Example

6. Integrity

 

Weaknesses of the Unchurched-Reaching Leaders

1. Pastoral Ministry

2. Lack of Patience

3. Dealing with Staff

4. Dealing with Criticism

5.  Always Task-Driven

6. Too Little Time in Prayer

 

In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning. If you enjoy research, you will enjoy the format of this book. If you are not a research person, you may find yourself bogged down in percentages, numbers, and graphs. That being said, I highly recommend this book. Anyone who is involved in the work of the church, as it relates to connecting unchurched people to the body of Christ, will benefit from this book. In my opinion, the benefit of this book is insight. It is tremendously helpful to know how the unchurched think and what has kept them from the church. It is with this knowledge that we as leaders and laymen can better build the bridges the unchurched need.