The Cooperative Program is now in its tenth decade of existence. For many Southern Baptists, their memory of it does not include any time when it was a thriving, increasing measure of Southern Baptist denominational health. The general narrative concerning it has been negative in that churches, relentlessly and depressingly, have dropped their CP percentages, a decades long trend.
Here are a couple of things that offer a modicum of optimism relative to the CP:
First, the sub-narrative that megachurches are not helpful to the Cooperative Program and do not support it with the same dedication that smaller churches do is true enough if one looks at percentages. I do not know of many megachurches that make CP gifts above the 5.4% average percentage of undesignated gifts. I know many, many smaller churches that do so.
So, check the news on the SBC’s most prominent megachurch pastor and current SBC president, Ronnie Floyd. His Cross church is giving one million to the Cooperative Program this year. Very few churches have ever reached seven figures in CP gifts for a single year. Floyd has asked hard questions about the CP, yet continues to lead his church to give very generously to it. This is denominational leadership. I commend him and his church.
Perhaps we could stop, or at least slow down, the criticism of megachurches and their pastors for not being CP supporters. Almost all of them are supporters to some extent. When churches make autonomous decisions to give generously to the CP, they should all be commended. Fact is, 4% of SBC churches give 50% of all CP gifts, so if we wanted to engage in the unprofitable sport of finding targets for criticism we can easily do so; however, I prefer the posture of almost all state convention, seminary, mission board, and other SBC leaders who rejoice when a small church gives 20% or when a large church gives $1 million even if there is some spread between their giving percentages. I cannot recall any SBC leader not expressing appreciation for whatever level of CP giving a church engages in.
Second, the latest Executive Committee report on CP giving shows receipts slightly above budgeted allocations. If this month and next are good months perhaps there will be a small surplus at the end of the fiscal year. I don’t know about all pastors or entity leaders but I always thought that when revenues exceeded the budget, such was worth an Amen! Maybe even a Hallelujah!
Many of the state conventions, the hardest hit SBC entities of the past decade, deserve credit for taking steps to slightly reduce the portion of the CP that is kept in-state. Leaders like Ronnie Floyd deserve credit for making significant increases in their CP support. We are indeed on the same side: large church, small church, high percentage, low percentage, state convention, national entity.
While no one sees churches as a group returning to anywhere near the 10% of undesignated offerings that was the standard of 35 years ago, we might see the CP level off at 5 to 6 percent and at least have an idea of what we will need to do as we go forward.
I am breaking a personal rule by foraying into the blogosphere, but the subject is so dear to my heart that I cannot resist. Another indication that the CP is being rediscovered for its power in sustaining ministry is here –
https://vimeo.com/135725021
I know of no ministry funding mechanism that does not have its downsides. But I also know of none that have outproduced the Cooperative Program. Get this – a mere 1% bump in average CP giving among the churches would produce ~1,000 more international missionaries and about the same number of CPCs, completely eclipsing what a similar bump would yield in the LMCO, the AAEO, church additions etc, combined.
Said another way – If we tithed (instead of just giving 2% of our gross income, as studies show evangelicals are currently giving to ALL charitable causes INCLUDING the local church. Pitiful.) and if we reattained the highest average percentage once given through the CP (about double where we are now), we would have 50,000 fully-supported international missionaries and a similar army of CPCs, because the CP would be gathering 6 Billion dollars a year to support our ministries instead of just 600 Million.
I need to check out and go back to work, but please don’t tell me what is wrong with CP. I know all that stuff. Again, there is no perfect system. Democracy has its flaws too, but I am not wishing for any other form of government, and I am certainly not impressed by the “promise” of alternate forms of ministry support. We Southern Baptists have been blessed with the best. Let’s use it!
“Get this – a mere 1% bump in average CP giving among the churches would produce ~1,000 more international missionaries and about the same number of CPCs, completely eclipsing what a similar bump would yield in the LMCO…”
An extra $1,000,000 given to the CP of any state convention would pay for far fewer extra international missionaries than if the same million was given to the LMCO.
That’s a great point.
I am not sure about this but I think Arkansas is a 60/40 split with 60 staying in state.
For the purpose of illustration lets just say that is so…
If the $1m had been halved between LMCO/AACO = $1m would directly support and send missionaries nationally and internationally.
However, since it was given to the state convention only $400,000 actually ended up going to the SBC of which a far, far less amount actually made it to the IMB/NAMB.
If they had chosen to give $400K to the ABSC and then $300K to both LMCO and AACO might that have actually helped mission astronomically more?
I am a CP supporter – but lets be honest the many state conventions gobble up way more of these “momentous” CP gifts than is actually getting to NAMB and IMB.
It is well known that state conventions gobble up most of a CP dollar. That’s the system we have always had and RF is well aware of what ABSC keeps. Churches and pastors make their budgeting and mission spending decisions every year. I’m simply saying that if the CP is our prime, though imperfect, funding mechanism one should give this megapastor credit for actions that affirm that.
Yes, Lynn and Tarheel, what you both say is true, and going that route is certainly anyone’s prerogative. Church autonomy and individual freedom are two of the many great strengths of our Southern Baptist polity. Each believer must follow the Holy Spirit’s leading, including in matters of stewardship.
I’d encourage anyone to consider that the logical extension of direct giving along the lines you imply would result in a funded IMB without a funded Convention, ERLC, any of the six seminaries, any North American Mission Board, or any state convention or state ministry. My appreciation for the Southern Baptist Convention largely turns on its coverage and its prioritization of ministry. Using a body analogy, while the Convention has always known how important its heart health is, it has likewise understood that its other organs are also essential to overall health and continued viability. Giving “most of the blood” to the heart might not work out for the body.
Additionally, my appreciation for state ministry has grown rather than diminished during the years I have been involved in Baptist work. If I were to withhold support from state conventions because of their weak spots, staying true to the rationale would force me to do that with the national convention’s ministries too. Rather than withhold on the basis of anomaly, I choose to support on the basis of strength. Overall, I see no other denominational assortment of ministry as excellent as ours.
Also, regarding rationale, if direct giving is a motif that works, why don’t churches use it to support the various aspects of their work? The reason, of course, is because experience has taught them that there are many essential aspects of church work that would never garner the interest or contribution necessary, and the inability to sustain those unfunded aspects would cause the entire church to fail. Asking church members to give to the ministry in the church “they see as being the most effective” would yield insurmountable dysfunction. Perhaps an IMB without our seminaries, or our ERLC or our national or state conventions would be possible, but I cannot imagine it. What we have in the SBC is an entity whose component parts function together at appropriate priorities and funding levels (for the most part) and affecting a part affects the whole of it.
I would just say that I argue for the Cooperative Program – yes, even the state convention part of it – not only because I see every gear in the watch as essential, but also because I truly see it as producing more for the IMB (or any other of your favorite state or national ministries) than direct giving ever will. In the two hypotheticals where IMB missionaries ask churches to only give through the Cooperative Program, or only give through the LMCO, the former will result in massively more money for the IMB. LMCO is individual giving. CP is corporate giving. Both are currently possible, but one has more untapped potential.
I will end with this. I have spoken in hypotheticals, but consider actual history. The tithe is a personal giving model. Have we ever reached the utopian condition of universal tithing? No. But have we ever reached an average of 10% CP giving among all the churches? Yes. In fact, we once did slightly better than 11%. If we just did that again, even at the abysmal giving percentages we evangelicals personally contribute now, we would be funding the IMB through the CP at twice present levels. 10,000 foreign missionaries. Think of it. And not only that, but we’d also be doubling every other worthy state and national ministry. Direct giving will never reach that goal, but CP already has. Let’s do it again.
Thanks for breaking your rule, Augie!
” I don’t know about all pastors or entity leaders but I always thought that when revenues exceeded the budget, such was worth an Amen! Maybe even a Hallelujah!”
Very good news. The CP budget is based on the previous years revenue. Back in the early days we used to count on the revenues that exceeded the budget for capital projects; but it eventually proved difficult to make long term plans. It was assumed that revenues would always exceed the budget, as this simply means that giving has increased from the previous year. Good news, indeed, if we do not decline in CP giving again this year.
You can thank the Executive Committee for making straightforward monthly reports on the CP – up or down. I appreciate that.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Ronnie Floyd’s Cross Church*es* (I think there are 7of them) gave one million dollars. 😉
I support the Lottie Moon offering an the CP. It is true that money given straight to Lottie will produce more on the mission field than that given to the state convention. However can we count on the fact that if CP is reduced by any church that the church will give an identical amount of new money to Lottie. I don’t know, just asking.
I do not have a survey, have not researched, and do not intend to. However the churches that I pastored that were serious about missions did not seek to make that decision. They gave a healthy amount each year to both. The one church that was not very serious had a squabble over the CP part of the budget and money going out to Lottie every year.
I am convinced that before the CP will increase very much the the State Conventions are going to have to clean up their spending act. Because of social media anyone can find out how much waste there is in the state conventions.
Slightly off topic…but William will no doubt appreciate this change in nomenclature from 45-45-10 to 47-53.
The real problem, as I see it, is not so much the portion kept by the state conventions but the portion given by the churches in the first place.
http://alerts.thealabamabaptist.org/2015/08/14/alabama-convention-continues-goal-of-parity-with-sbc/
Here’s the relevant passage from the article linked:
“…while shared ministries are supported at all levels of Southern Baptist life, the phrase itself and the concept in general are no longer communicating the allocation of funds clearly, said SBOM Executive Director Rick Lance. So going forward, the budget language in Alabama will deal only with state and national percentages.”
I think that your ED should be commended for both the change in the language and the proposed 53/47 split. The former is a recognition that Alabama and almost all state conventions have been unclear about the division of CP gifts from the churches and that budget language should be clear to churches, pastors, and members. The latter makes Rick’s state convention among the most generous with the state/national division of CP funds.
I appreciate the comment and the link.