There is other news of note than the sad saga of LifeWay and President and Mrs. Trump being sick. For a bright, positive example consider our IMB appointing 80 new missionaries, ones that are “fully funded” and supported by our existing revenue stream. More on that later.
But about the Alaska state convention and our beloved Cooperative Program as reported in Baptist Press:
Alaska Baptists vote to withhold CP funds
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (BP) – Messengers to the annual meeting of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network took the unprecedented step of attempting to withhold the allocation of future Cooperative Program funds intended for the North American Mission Board.
The state convention moved Tuesday (Sept. 29) that beginning with the 2022 budget, “the percentage of Cooperative Program funds that traditionally were intended for the North American Mission Board … be retained in Alaska” and designated for a state missions fund “until such time as there is a collaborative, cooperative and mutually-agreed upon strategy with the North American Mission Board, as determined by our executive director and the executive board of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network.”
This is a significant action even though the state (their name is “Alaska Baptist Resource Network”; seems that using “convention” is sooo 20th century) has only 120 of the SBC’s 47k churches (churches and missions, I think is more accurate but BP reported the larger number of “churches.”)
Here’s the arrangement about state conventions and the CP:
- State conventions promote and collect CP contributions from their churches. State conventions have no money of their own. It all comes from churches (a few minor exceptions to this, like property sales, bequests, and investment returns).
- State conventions receive these monies, designated “Cooperative Program” from the churches, and pass an agreed percentage to the SBC Executive Committee. Each state decides what percent they want to keep for themselves. The overall SBC average is around 60% to the state, 40% to the EC. I couldn’t find current ABRN data. This doesn’t matter. It’s the decision of the autonomous state convention what percentage to keep.
- The SBC Executive Committee divides the CP receipts from the states among SBC entities according to percentages approved by SBC messengers in annual session. Most importantly here, NAMB receives 22.79% of each CP dollar received in Nashville. It gets that because the SBC messengers voted that. You can’t get more grassroots than that.
- The ABRN voted to keep the 22.79% in state; that is, NAMB would be defunded from CP giving through the churches in Alaska. Needless to say, some in the ABRN are mad at NAMB. This is their reaction, called “somber” by the ARBN’s leader, Randy Covington.
But, you knew all that already.
Here’s what is newsworthy about this (and when was the last time Baptist Press wrote a 2,000 word story on Southern Baptists in Alaska?).
- As Ronnie Floyd is quoted in the story, “The Cooperative Program is not a cafeteria plan.” Righto Ronnie and exactly the right metaphor. SBC messengers, not state convention messengers, define the Cooperative Program. If a state wants to reduce support for the CP, they can reduce the percentage sent to the EC for distribution.
- The ABRN action poked all their churches in the eye concerning the churches’ CP giving. In effect, the ARBN said that we want your Cooperative Program gifts but we’re going to redefine what it means in this cold state.
- The ABRN action poked the Cooperative Program in the eye. Actually, it cut the heart out of the CP.
- The ABRN action poked NAMB in the eye. Hey, I get it. Some states don’t like how NAMB spends the money they receive from the CP and the Annie Armstrong offering.
- The action may be illegal, depends on the agreements signed by states concerning the CP. Perhaps we can avoid another lawsuit. It doesn’t matter to the CP if a state recalculates their CP percentage and reduces it by the amount NAMB or any other entity receives. It does matter if the state says, “We’ve agreed to the CP but want to defund some of the entities Southern Baptist messengers have approved and keep the money for ourselves.”
NAMB, by the way and not insignificantly, puts an average of around $1 million annually into Alaska. That’s about $10k per church, according to the latest data I have at hand. Not quite chump change. The problem is that the ABRN would like to have more say in how NAMB spends its money in their state.
So, why not have a confab and work it out face-to-face? Kevin Ezell, NAMB leader, says he is willing to meet. Randy Covington says, “Negotiations are ongoing about the venue and the size of the meeting and those kinds of things.” Yeah, those kind of things. Really.
_____________
Not likely to supplant the outrage and angst over LifeWay, but very important nonetheless.
Please, no complaints about “drop dead.” The principle of cooperation is effectively killed by actions like the ABRN. Besides, it’s a good phase to use in the title.
Update: I admit to an affection for famous headlines. “Drop dead” is one of them. I think it’s a good fit but nowadays folks don’t ever read articles, much less links. I’d be interested for any ABRN people to challenge Ronnie Floyd on his “cafeteria” comment or dispute anything in the BP article.
Question William… Are the churches of the Alaska state convention on board with this tactic… Did it come from them or is this a lone power-play by state execs? Now for a few statements. If it’s merely a power-play by state execs I would think (hope) the messengers would vote it down if they did not approve of it…. Either way though you’re right…. it seems that state conventions and entire churches are taking the tactic as we’ve (as pastors and church leaders) have allowed members in our churches to do for decades – to intentionally (and often with some… Read more »
i think you make q good point in church leaders have given up on teaching cooperative giving. I would tisane it a step deeper… They have given up on teaching what it is to be Southern Baptist. Maybe some of that is due to the national level not looking as SB as it once was. I think the ABSC and other smaller conventions who are supported by the SBC have come to feel like they work for the one who sends the money back instead of for the people in their state(s). My thinking is the people of Alaska (and elsewhere) know best what… Read more »
Great Commission Giving fallout strikes again! While I understand the spirit of Cooperative Giving, and even the statement of the Cooperative Program not being a cafeteria meal plan, it seems that unilateral decisions made at the top and forced downward are leaving bad tastes in the mouths of state, association, and church leaders. How many state conventions are at the mercy of NAMB when funds were refocused because of GCG? I know West Virginia is. How many local associations started closing doors when this happened? I know a number who are on life-support and near death where they were holding… Read more »
Read the lengthy bp story. It was state convention action at the annual meeting. Seems to me that the state leadership could have said we can’t do it this way. Churches are free to bypass cp giving. States aren’t, but they can slash the percentage.
Given what I keep reading about NAMB and perceived heavy-handedness there (this isn’t a one-off story), things like this may continue to occur. Consequently, it makes me wonder if this suggests something isn’t working properly at NAMB? If that’s the case, then shouldn’t we be asking more questions about how NAMB is being operated and why these stories seem to keep popping up?
For perspective, what NAMB has been giving to Alaska and what they are GOING TO give are likely two different things. NAMB is changing its partnerships with state conventions – essentially they are going to fund their work directly without partnering with state conventions anymore. new Work states like mine are scrambling to adjust budgets because of this change. I don’t know enough to speak to the situation in Alaska, but NAMB decided to change the dynamic of partnership. Some state conventions (Iowa for instance) are adjusting and moving forward – seeking to increase CP allocation. Others are reacting in… Read more »
Ezell says they will continue investing in Alaska at the same rate or greater. If I find numbers I’ll post them. The changes in how the spending is done is not new and was one of the GCR points.
Seems to me that among the options available to state conventions what ABRN has done is the least sensible one.
What message do you think they’re trying to send? There’s a certain logic to not sending money to Alpharetta that comes “back” to Ezell loyalists.
If NAMB can turn into a competing pastors network that encourages “great commission giving” around the states, you might expect the hardest-hit states to suggest Great Commission Giving networks that don’t plant with NAMB.
I well understand the anti-NAMB message. It’s that other message that is more concerning; the CP as a cafeteria plan. The CP is a pact between the EC (and, by extension, SBC messengers) and the states which collect CP revenue from the churches. Churches have to make a hard designation of what they give the state as CP. States are not obligated to give the EC any particular percentage of the CP dollars they receive but they can’t rework the CP allocation formula. The simpler solution would have been to adjust the percentage they keep. They cut the heart out… Read more »
I calculated that namb spends $10k per church. Ezell just tweeted that namb spends more per person in ak than any other state. Facts here might be inconvenient for ABRN.
I think it would be helpful to see a detail of how and where the funds are being used in Alaska by NAMB. Question, if NAMB can support things directly outside of traditional funding means, then why can’t the state conventions. I don’t like seeing the breakdown of the Cooperative Program, however we began going down this road years ago.
You should be clear about “traditional funding means.” The first detail I’d like to see is how the ARBN has been spending money given by SBC churches through the CP and Annie Armstrong offering.
Traditional – working through state conventions & allowing them to be the main contact. Ex: church planters answered to the state & also to NAMB. I certainly don’t know all the details, and want to believe the best in both sides, however, it seems that some state conventions and NAMB are not working well together. While NAMB seems to operate within states independent of state conventions, when the state responds in a similar manner (choosing how to use funds), we want to bring up the cooperative program. I honestly don’t know if someone is right or wrong, it is just… Read more »
Why is the ABRN Executive Director and the Treasurer the same person?
Executive Director-Treasurer is a common term for Baptist state convention executives.
Nearly universal
Here is the URL for the livestream copy of the motion, discussion and vote at the Alaska meeting. Go to 2:55:13 on the video, and you will hear the discussion. This is much more than just a money issue. https://www.facebook.com/alaskabrn/videos/697390724202106/
Thanks. I’ll watch when I have a chance.
I just watched it….it sure seems that the messengers were completely aware and on board with the motion – they all seemed to express hopes that resolution can be found prior to the reallocation taking place with the change noted in the Alaska convention budget of 2022.
I agree with William that this approach is unwise and not in keeping with the cooperative idea that is the CP. …but, hey – silver lining is that at least the messengers made this decision at the recommendation of the board, and not just a few executive board members….
I wonder if we are going to see more of this. Alaska is not the only state that is unhappy with the NAMB.
https://baptistmessage.com/six-state-executives-say-theres-no-partnership-in-new-namb-strategic-cooperative-agreement/
No question some state execs are mad at namb. Alaska is the first state to take this foolish action that cuts the heart out of the CP. But, even they are talking about a future budget. I expect sensible people in Alaska will fix this. Namb puts more money into Alaska per person than any other state. They were ratified in the concept of controlling their own spending by SBC messengers years ago.
It’s easy to say namb spends more money per person but how can one see this? Could it be a question of effectiveness? After all if namb is doing such a fine job why is cp in decline baptisms in decline. After all it’s fruit we’re looking for here
Namb reports spending more than the entire amount of ABRC church CP giving for the most recent year data are available.
It is a question of effectiveness. More on that later.
More money does not necessarily translate into greater effectiveness. I watched the video of the decision being made at the Alaska meeting and what I saw and heard had far more to do with effectiveness than it did with dollar amounts. I get it – I pastored on what we might call the American church frontier for a number of years. In my opinion and from my experience, someone who has never pastored or ministered outside of the Bible-belt has a difficult time being a mission strategist in a state such as Alaska. I hear the people of Alaska saying,… Read more »
I haven’t gotten around to watching the meeting but will. You make good points. Will have something soon.
The IMB moved away from the use of funds being beholden to national local conventions and unions years ago. Freed them up to focus resources and personnel on harvest growth and church planting. This has caused consternation in some corners but the IMB is in a healthier place to partner as equals with national leaders but also continue work when priorities do not align. Is NAMB doing the same here? If so, while the break is not easy, it might be healthier in the long run for focusing on the task that it has been entrusted with by the SBC.
That seems quite a reasonable assumption.
As I understand it there are about 8 states discussing doing the same thing that Alaska done.
Not exactly. What they said was “…our boards have contemplated such responses as declining to enter into any agreements with NAMB, retaining a larger percentage of Cooperative Program funds for the work of the state conventions, designating giving only to specific SBC work, reducing promotion of the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering and replacing it with a more robust state missions offering, or even creating unique state-facilitated partnerships.” The threat of “designating giving only to specific SBC work” is unclear. If they mean negative CP designation where no CP money sent to Nashville goes to namb, or ERLC, or whatever then… Read more »