Merry Christmas from the Palmers

An e-card for you.

Make a Smilebox greeting

25 in 25 Campaign at Southeastern

There's never been a better time to support Southeastern. Learn more at www.sebts.edu/25in25.

25 in 25 from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.

Reclaiming Christmas without Fighing Christmas Wars

For some time in America, the Christmas Season has meant long lines at the mall and the sound of every retailer’s all-time favorite Christmas song, "Ring-a-ding, ding," played by cash registers everywhere. One expert has estimated the average U.S. household will spend $490 on gifts this Christmas — not to mention travel, ham, and pumpkin pie. Saving a buck or two during this time of year has almost become unpatriotic.

Clearly the merchants’ view of Christmas saturates our society and runs counter to an accurate understanding of the holiday’s true meaning.

That has made this season’s hottest debate — "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" —all the more confusing to me. Every November, some evangelicals along with the help of Bill O'Reilly and other media pundits, ramp up a campaign to force corporate America into marketing Christ’s birth.

How quickly we forget Christ’s admonitions regarding the blinding effects of wealth.

The argument of those pushing this issue simply states: If you don’t say "Merry Christmas" in your ads, we won’t shop at your stores. In making their case so virulently, these evangelicals err in at least three ways.

First, the argument seemingly embraces the commercialization of Christmas. No matter how an advertisement proclaims the season, "Buy our stuff," marks the true meaning of their message. The words "Merry Christmas" have the most impact when attached to their true biblical underpinnings — something those filled with the joy of Christ are called to spread. The marketing of "I say Merry Christmas" buttons and bumper stickers is definitively not what Christmas is all about.

Second, the argument seemingly longs for Target, Wal-Mart, and others to champion the cause of our Lord. While that’s an interesting, and perhaps pleasant thought, we must acknowledge Christ commissioned His disciples and His church with promulgating the gospel — not Fortune 500 companies. Wal-Mart’s job is selling milk, eggs, and remote controls at everyday low prices under a bright yellow smiley face.

Third, evangelicals must ask, "Do we lose a Christ-like spirit every time we demand others say ‘Merry Christmas’?" Convincing others of the unique, true, and exclusive gospel message proves challenging enough. We should not impede our efforts to share Christ by being overzealous in shopping only with "Christian" corporations and partnering with TV provocateurs who, at best, spin a blended, and therefore, false gospel.

I recently found myself at odds with a normally like-minded, conservative evangelical when this issue was broached. He was primarily upset that corporations are being intellectually dishonest by not specifically acknowledging "Christmas." His frustration grew from the fact that Lowe’s would be selling zero holiday items in December, if not for a celebration of Christ’s birth. On that point, he is correct. December’s other holidays were elevated, in part, as a response to the importance that Christmas has for many Americans. Nevertheless, even he conceded that instead of storming out to fight in the "war for Christmas," evangelicals should focus on personally demonstrating and speaking the love of Jesus Christ.

In America, Christians have the freedom to share the glorious gift of Jesus and should use it liberally. Thousands of Christians around the globe suffer martyrdom and imprisonment each year for sharing the truth of Christ. Meanwhile in America, we blame Target for our failure to reach those outside of Christianity. Let’s get real.

Fortunately, many evangelical Christians reject the incessant commercialization of Christmas and use this time to reflect on the wonderful event we celebrate each year in late December: Christ’s birth.

Yes, we buy presents for loved ones, but Christmas constitutes something deeper. Evangelicals should assist others in understanding that we give tokens to family and friends in acknowledgement of our joy for the ultimate gift God gave the world. In doing so, these evangelicals show an understanding that Jesus’ birth inextricably points to His life’s purpose: To seek and save that which was lost by means of His death and resurrection for sinners.

This Christmas, let us ignore any retailers’ refrain and refocus on being the Body of Christ. That will demonstrate true obedience to His Great Commission, and lead others to His eternal salvation. I pray you and yours have a very Merry Christmas this holiday season.

You're Naïve, Young, etc.

A second "argument" that has been leveled in refuting my analysis of CP expenditures is that I am one of the following, "young," "naïve," "a boy," and "a young whippersnapper."

I could have allowed these words to serve as a discouragement to me, but I have been heartened by Paul's words of encouragement to Timothy in his church plant. He writes, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Tim 4:12).

While my motives have been questioned, I know my motives well. My heart is clean before God and man with respect to the analysis of CP expenditures that I penned.

To be clear, I was not naïve to assess our CP expenditures in the way that I did. I have a clearly articulated, Biblically-grounded, theological rationale for assessing our CP expenditures.

To date, I am unaware of any substantive challenge to my theological assumptions or the study's conclusions. If you find Hankins's objections to be substantive, I will address them in the days ahead.

I was, however, a bit naïve in one respect. I actually thought people may have considered the substance of what I wrote before they responded to my assessment.

I was naïve to think that the deep disproporionality in our missions investments may cause many baby boomer generation SBC leaders to take a long, introspective look at the status quo. I was naïve to think that proposing a theological rationale for making missions investments could be seen as an overall positive starting point for launching a healthy discussion about the future of CP allocations.

As an aside, there must be an overriding rationale - if not, zero dollars will make it out of the states because all the funds will be spent on the many good things taking place in the states. Why shoot for 50/50 if it is just a number tossed out in 1925? What is the reason for the initial suggestion of 50/50? It is that we have always believed that the nations are as important to God as our immediate neighbors. The per capita analysis demonstrates that we do not really spend our money consistent with our stated belief.

I'm more convinced than ever that we should spend our funds consistent with the missional impulse of Scripture, but I am no longer naïve enough to believe the logical implications of this conviction will take root among many SBC leaders of my father's age.

To be sure, there are a number of exceptions, and this has served as a great encouragement in the midst of some fairly challenging days.

While I had hoped for reasonable, productive conversation, this outcome largely did not come to fruition. Instead, most responses came quickly and, largely, reflected only a surface-level familiarity with the substance of my analysis. (The later responses were much more positive).

One pastor, at the urging of his state director, called me and began to berate me as soon as I said, "Hello." He addressed me "man to boy" and told me just how long he had been teaching the Bible.

After he calmed down and allowed me to explain the substance of my argument, he was ashamed. He realized that I was not saying his church was weak but that local churches are the key to fulfilling the Great Commission.

The conversation turned in a moment, and suddenly the analysis made much more sense.

The road ahead may be rough, but I remain optimistic - perhaps naïvely so . . . perhaps not. Time will tell.

Funding for Seminaries

I am not the first person in the world of Southern Baptist Seminaries who noted the challenges in the way in which we currently fund seminaries.

My intention was not to dramatically grow seminary funding through the CP in writing my study. My hope was (and is) that we might be motivated to look beyond our Jerusalem and Samaria as we invest our missions dollars.

Nevertheless, Dr. Chuck Kelly of New Orleans Baptist Seminary recognized the need for additional seminary funding well before I ever enrolled at Southeastern.

Dr. Kelly is still right on the challenges of seminary funding.

Your "Study" or "Stuh-dee"

There have been a number of "objections" raised in response to my assessment of the current allocation of our Cooperative Program expenditures. In the coming days (perhaps weeks, much going on at the moment), I will address these "objections."

Several have suggested that my "study" is hardly deserving of the name; a few have made sure that I could hear the sarcasm in their voice saying, "stuh-dee" every time they used the word. The assessment is just far too simple to be designated a "study."

I agree.

If you read the FBW article or the narrative I supplied, you know that I said the process was "simply a matter of arithmetic."

My use of the term "study" is not intended to communicate a deep level of statistical analysis - that is not necessary in this case. The surface facts are convincing, compelling, and convicting as they stand.


Call it what you will. The assessment is convicting in part because of its simplicity. We do not need a complex formula or a standardized survey to see how we are doing with what we are already investing for the sake of the Gospel.

The disproportionality in our missions investments is undeniable. It was, and remains, alarming.

Implying that the term "study" is intended to make the analysis sound more complex than it actually is may serve as a nice way to convince people to ignore the facts contained therein, but it is not a real critique.

It is, however, a convenient cover in defense of an indefensible status quo.

Quotable Re-Introduction to Per Capita Analysis

In some e-mails and phone calls, I've been chastised for pursuing a per capita analysis of SBC missions investments domestically and internationally. No one has yet offered a different way to evaluate our investments or clearly articulated their concern with a per capita approach. They do not like it; that much is clear.

Bob Terry perhaps comes the closest to an explanation that makes sense when he writes, "Baptists pay bills with dollars, not percentages," though he writes this in a different context than that discussed here. Nevertheless, norming expenditures on a per capita basis for the purposes of comparison is a routine and widely-accepted statistical approach whether per capita expenditures pay the bills or not.

Furthermore, our theology suggests the approach. If we believe every soul is equal before God and that He wills that none should perish, assessing our missions investments on the basis of how many people we hope to reach in a region is entirely logical.

I was pleased to discover a statement in a article in the Baptist Press (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31410) which essentially affirms the theological suppositions that are the foundation of my assessment of our CP expenditures.

Georgia Baptist Convention Executive Director J. Robert White says this, "In Acts 1:8, Jesus specified four mission fields ... Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the uttermost. As far as we can tell, He gave equal weight to each of those areas" http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=31410 (emphasis mine).

Dr. White is correct. His reasoning undergirds my assessment of our current investment of CP dollars. If we have many churches on the ground in the Southeast who are striving to make disciples, where must we invest most of our missions dollars if we are striving for an approximately equal investment in all mission fields? In the places where there are few thriving churches equipped to make disciples both domestically and internationally.

When comparing apples-to-apples (missions investments per capita at home verses abroad), we do not come anywhere near placing equal weight on each mission field. We have invested in our "Jerusalem" and "Judea" far more heavily than in "the ends of the earth" for decades - closing in on a century.

One cannot just look at raw totals and determine whether our investment is approximately equal. While bills are not paid in percentages or per capita expenditures, the money spent must be accounted for in such a way that an appropraite comparison of our investments at home and around the world is possible.

A per capita analysis is an appropriate approach to arrive at a meaninful comparison, unless, of course, our Lord could care less whether we are investing as earnestly abroad as we are at home.

If our Lord does care, and there is clear Scriptural warrant for making such a case, a per capita analysis is a commonly-accepted, logical, and appropriate statistical approach to arriving at something near an apples-to-apples comparison.

For example, the US government tracks the investment of states in public education by looking at what is spent per student within each state. To illustrate, California surely spends more in raw dollars on teaching students than does Rhode Island, but Rhode Island's investment per student may be higher. If this is true, California cannot be said to be the bigger spender on education even though, in raw dollars, they spend more. Both states are paying bills with gross dollars, but Rhode Island is investing more in their students because they spend more for each student in their state.

Likewise, the SBC cannot say it invests more for international missions when the target audience is 6.4 billion internationally but only 341 million domestically. Even if you reduced the 6.4 billion to only the 3.6 billion who have very little to no access to a gospel witness, the SBC would have to invest much more heavily in international missions to have a nearly equal investment in both territories.

It will take more than asking local churches to give more to Lottie Moon to make this happen. This is especially true if state convention leaders count Lottie Moon receipts toward their goal of a 50/50 split (this is more common than I realized). Under this approach, if churches give more to Lottie Moon, the state can then spend more of the regular CP offerings and still come out at a 50/50 split between the state and national conventions. Of course, this approach really nullifies Lottie Moon as a special offering and makes it more of an "offset offering." We'll save that thought for another day.

The point is one offering is not going to reverse what is a systemic challenge. It helps, but it is not enough. It will take a paradigm shift among Baptists in the Southeastern U.S. if we are going to achieve something closer to equality in our missions investments. We will need to give more to the CP, and more of our regular CP giving will need to go to the ends of the earth than stays at home currently - a significant increase in our regular, systematic investments in global missions is what it will take if we desire to at least approximate our Lord's heart in the investment of our missions dollars.

Lord you are able. We beg You to work in our lives, our churches, and our conventions that You will be known as the super-exalted Lord among people out of every tribe, tongue, language, and nation.