For almost 100 years now, the Cooperative Program has been the primary funding mechanism of the Southern Baptist Convention. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised. Tens of thousands of missionaries have been fully funded as they risked their lives to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Tens of thousands of churches have been planted across North America. And millions of people have heard the gospel as a result of the cooperative efforts of Southern Baptists. The impact of the Cooperative Program over the last 100 years of Southern Baptist life will only be fully known in eternity.
The idea is that if we pool our resources together, we can do more together than we could apart. That line of thinking rings true for me as a small church pastor. If my church were to raise up someone who wanted to be sent out as an international missionary, we wouldn’t be able to support him even if we used all of the money that we give annually to the Cooperative Program, Annie Armstrong Easter Offering, and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Yet because of the partnership we have with the Southern Baptist Convention, our member who feels God’s call to serve overseas can be appointed as a full-time career missionary without us writing him a single check. That’s the beauty of the Cooperative Program.
But now, a small group of Southern Baptists has come out as opposed to the Cooperative Program. They are concerned that it is being misused by churches that aren’t paying enough in each year to support the missionaries that they are sending through the International Mission Board. One church in the convention currently has 158 of its members serving with IMB. The church gave $500,000 to the Cooperative Program in 2017, but that would not have been enough to support all of the missionaries they have on the field. The small group of CP opponents is concerned that this makes the church a “net consumer” of CP dollars.
If I didn’t know any better, I would think that this was some kind of political game. Maybe they have some kind of ulterior motive. I mean, who would think to criticize a church for sending too many missionaries? Who would be willing to undermine the very funding mechanism that has financed the SBC for nearly 100 years without some kind of other motive?
Thankfully, these Cooperative Program opponents are only a minuscule percentage of the nearly 15 million member Southern Baptist Convention. They are loud. And they like for people to think they are a much larger group. They even like for people to think that they represent the thinking of the majority of Southern Baptists. But they are wrong. They do not represent most Southern Baptists. Most Southern Baptists love missions and give sacrificially so that those called to take the gospel to the ends of the earth can do so without worrying about raising support. The Cooperative Program will go on. Southern Baptists will continue to fund missions in the same way we have for almost 100 years now. And those churches that raise up their own to serve overseas will have the opportunity to send them with the IMB even if they can’t give enough to pay the bill.
Anyone saying this stuff that Adam’s describing has rooms to rent upstairs unfurnished.
More seriously, virtually any small or mid-sized SBC church who sent someone to do missions through the IMB would be a “net consumer” of CP funds. Any large church that sends many missionaries would be as well. As a church who doesn’t have a member on the field, and therefore likely a “net contributor” to the SBC CP, I’m rather glad for other churches to send as many as they can. Would we want our “positive balance” to sit in Al Gore’s lock box or something? This stuff makes absolutely no sense, and as Adam alluded to is clearly driven by political ambitions, to the detriment of unity. Divisive men have been warned and I recommend we have nothing to do with them.
Bit of sarcasm afoot here. I’ve been known to partake of such myself.
I think the greater danger to the CP comes from CP shaming. Doesn’t work.
Thank God for the church that gives 20% and the church that gives 2%, for the church that gives a token to LM and the church that gives a ton.
Small group? Who??
Nothing genuine on the radar… Not from our line of sight
Pick any number of posts on this site and read the comments
Todd – I only peruse this site occasionally but I haven’t run across any discussion about a move afloat in opposition to the CP. There’s lots of talk about the approaching SBC presidency and the [Editor Removed] article cited by Paul mostly rehashes that subject, but I didn’t see talk about no longer supporting the CP. I for one, need help connecting the dots.
Randy, gotcha.
What Adam is doing here is using a bit of sarcasm to respond to a recurring criticism of J.D. Greear and Summit Church. The argument is that Greear’s church is a “net consumer” of cooperative program dollars by sending out more missionaries than it gives to CP. Adam is trying to show that not only is that a ridiculous criticism, it undermines the CP itself and is, in essence, an opposition to the cooperative program. Noone making this argument would say they are opposed to CP — far from it — but the argument they ARE making is opposed to everything the CP is meant to be. Thus, Adam is trying to put a sharp point on the arrow to pierce the argument at its heart.
Hope that clarifies things. 🙂
Just curious… Is there a link to a source?
The argument has come up on numerous comment threads on this blog as well as other blogs that we won’t link to here.
Mike, I googled “JD Greear cooperative giving”. From all the results given (Nine pages) I found none criticizing Greear for his cooperative giving for this presidential run. All I could find was one on page 4 that said “Also, Southern Baptists must ask about Greear’s commitment to the Cooperative Program. What is Greear’s The Summit Church percentage of giving to the CP? How much does the CP benefit The Summit Church and its members?”
[Link removed by editor]
The question was Greear using cooperative giving while not being interested in giving much to it, not a question of dollar amount but percentage. It was NOT a question of him sending out more missionaries than he was paying for. And again, it was posed as a question.
My comments on this blog on this topic were similar, (even saying there may be a reasonable explanation for everything) and they were repeatedly twisted to mean something I didn’t say. The only other comments I’ve seen on this topic are questions of a low percentage of giving not dollar amount; criticizing low percentage giving hardly seems like criticizing cooperative giving.(Of course, I haven’t read every comment on this blog or any other.)
And I think people should be careful about “punching bullies in the nose” – make sure it’s really the bully you think you see.
You found it…the reduction of Cooperation to a net P/L type figure. Recognize that for what it is. It’s mostly political strategy, I think. How can TS’s being such a large mssy sending church be used against JDG for this election? Frankly, it’s offensive.
There is a ‘part two’ to this strategy but it has only been hinted at. I expect to see it before June, though.
Your link is to one of the big anti-Moore, JDG, etc.
Looked at the linked article. Has anyone else noticed that the word “elite” has come to mean anyone who doesn’t support Donald Trump?
Brothers, I only gave the link so you too would have all the evidence I found. The quality of the website has nothing to do with the point I was making — that it was the only one I found. I even gave you the full quote on the topic so you wouldn’t have to go there!
My point was all the questioning of JD Greear and cooperative giving that I could find were not what was being criticized in this post or the comments.
https://sbcvoices.com/heres-the-list-showing-the-long-line-of-calvinistic-sbc-presidents/#comment-356796
Interesting that they chose percentage as a way to judge his commitment, seeing as how his church give us more than any other church in his state.
Percentage certainly matters, but it would seem that the right response to a church that gives more total dollars than any other church in its state would be “Thank you” instead of insisting that it’s not enough. William Thornton has made this point very well many times.
Adam, if you have linked to Greg’s other comment it would’ve said:
Greg says
February 21, 2018 at 8:56 pm
I think one problem is that Summit could afford to do much more but they don’t or won’t . I know that there is no set amount for CP giving but 2.4 percent is pretty sad and that is over 10 years average .
Again, not a complaint of how many missionaries being sent out, not a complaint about dollar giving, not an attack on cooperative giving, but a criticism of a low percentage of giving. Greg could be right, he could be wrong, there could be a great defense for what Greear is doing, but we won’t know unless we get Greg’s argument straight.
Best. Post. Ever.
Best way to deal with a bully is a quick punch to the nose. This qualifies.
Good work Adam. Hope it wakes a couple of people up.
The premise seems to be that there is some line of churches who give a higher CP percentage and have people waiting to serve IMB that can not because the slots are taken by The Summit. Are there any churches who have qualified people consistently being turned away by the IMB? I doubt it. I suspect the next line of argument will square with the messenger allotment. Someone will suggest a missionary cap per church based on CP/LMCO giving.
I wonder if Mr Thornton can find in some hidden index how many churches actually have a missionary unit in the field. Based on 46K SBC churches, there are over 42,000 that currently have no one serving overseas. I would think we should talk to them before trying to stop the steady flow of Summit members willing to pack up, leave and serve.
How many 10-15% CP legacy churches have people willing to serve UUPGs in Central or South Asia?
Sarcastic, yes, but hopefully useful to point out the absurdity of the objection to Summit’s large number of foreign missionaries.
Giving money is necessary, but it is also the easy part. A real live Christian willing to lay aside their own lives and follow the call of God to the mission field is worth far more than the dollar amount required to support them. Regardless of their CP record, Summit is definitely a net giver. The objection is ludicrous.
Calvinists are often accused of deception (including Greear, if he is a Calvinist) but the folks objecting to his candidacy cannot possibly truthfully object to the number of foreign missionaries from the church. It would be more honest to simply say that they hate the thought of a suspected Calvinist in the SBC presidency and will do all they can to stop it.
Bill Mac wrote: Greear, if he is a Calvinist
Brother, I think I can answer this question for you. His church is listed with the Calvinist only Gospel Coalition.
http://churches.thegospelcoalition.org/app/church/9348
Great article. The statements of some have grieved my heart. I think it was Adrian Rogers who said “dollars pay bills, not percentages.”
Jon, I completely agree with the premise (to a point) but don’t forget Adrian Rogers was a pastor of a mega-church.
However the truth is that many, many, small churches in the SBC give sizable percentages of their small budgets to the Cooperative Program. I would argue (though I can’t prove it) that if all the small churches gave the same average percentage of the mega-churches, our Cooperative Money would decrease substantially. I completely understand that Mega-Churches (roughly 500 or so who average over 1,000 members a week) give a large dollar amount to the Cooperative Program. However, there are (roughly) 47,000 churches in the SBC.
William Thornton wrote a post stating (essentially) that these Mega-Churches (4% of all SBC churches) give 50% of the money. I praise the Lord for that and in no way am I saying that Dr. Greer’s church (or other Mega-Churches) don’t give generously towards the Cooperative Program.
https://sbcvoices.com/just-4-of-sbc-churches-give-50-of-all-cooperative-program-gifts-by-william-thornton/
Nevertheless here’s the rub from one who pastors a small church (75 avg and budget of 130k). We give 10% to Local, State, and Cooperative Missions. I realize this is a paltry amount compared to the Mega-Churches, but it is a sacrifice to us. We have 5 families on the IMB mission field from our church and certainly couldn’t afford to support them alone, which is why we believe in the Cooperative Program.
I praise the Lord for the Mega-Churches, but I do tire of hearing implications that we can’t survive without them as if they are the main (or only reason) we have the ability to do Cooperatively what we do. (I’m not saying you are saying that Jon). We can’t survive without them! We can’t survive without all the small churches like mine either, which is my point!
Dollars pay the bills, but percentages equate to dollars also. If we quit sending our percentage (or lower it), the number of dollars received decreases as well. 46,000+ small-to-mid-size churches equate to 500 Mega-Churches
How we answer the “Why We Give?” question has strategic bearing on the outworkings of how much, how little, what percentage, etc. Comparisons and contrasts while academically interesting, only drives division. In the heart of the spirit that forms CP we should find the fire that unites us all on mission and answers the question of why we do what we do.
It is a perceived lack of accountability that is causing some to question CP giving. If our SBC entities supported entirely by CP funds were more accountable this would never happen. It is happening NOW because our SBC entities feel no need to respond to SBC churches who disagree with them. This should be seen as a red flag needing attending to vs. an anomaly needing to be ridiculed and ignored.
Allen, that’s really another discussion. Some are criticizing The Summit for sending a number of missionaries that is disproportionate to the amount of money they give to the CP. Those doing the criticizing fail to acknowledge that the CP is built on the idea that God-called missionaries should be able to go and serve overseas regardless of whether or not their home church can foot the bill.
Take away church names, the sides taken in an upcoming election and personalities involved and you have some people criticizing an SBC church for sending out too many missionaries. That is unreal. It boggles my mind that a church not without warts as all have some is being faithful in planting churches both internationally and domestically but people will criticize that faithfulness to the Great Commission.
Oh how I long for the day when hundreds, no thousands of SBC churches take ownership of the need to send people out like that church in Antioch. I long for the day when the IMB Head has to tell the messengers that we have 10,000 qualified people ready to go but the churches of the SBC need to dig deep to fund them. That will be a glorious day. Yet here we are when a few disparage a church that is focused on sending out people into the harvest and supporting them cooperatively, as a church, with prayer and with short-term trips focused on supporting their work in hard to reach places.
Yep.
This “controversy” is bizarre. For example, if a small SBC church had a couple appointed as missionaries by the IMB, would anyone criticize that church for not giving enough to SBC missions to support that couple? Of course not. Summit Church sends out lots of missionaries for three reasons: (1) the pastor and church are mission-minded; (2) lots of university students are members, and they volunteer to serve in the Journeyman program of the IMB; and (3) lots of students from Southeastern Seminary are member, too. I wish all our churches had the sending record that Summit Church does.
I didn’t criticize the number of missionaries sent out. I simply pointed out the lack of commitment to the local association and the low percentage for the CP. We use to talk about equal sacrifice not equal size giving.
“Equal sacrifice not equal size giving.”
Good point here. I wonder how many churches are asking “are we giving enough” rather than “are we sacrificing enough?”
I go to a mega church and we give 1% of our $20 million budget. While $200K is a lot of money, I don’t understand why we can’t give more when we are laying off missionaries after God has blessed us so abundantly. A matter for prayer.
Prayer and also an inquiry, by you, to as why your church is not giving more.
As far as punching a bully in the nose that must be a textual variant of the beatitudes.
Best. Comment. Ever.
Lol…good one Greg!
Dean, I agree – it is a good comment.
Lol
Lol
its good to all laugh and remember we are on the same team!
LOL
😉
As in beat-itudes?
The problem is not how many missionaries that church sends, nor how much it costs to send them. The problem is that this church’s Pastor has expressed dislikes with the Convention, but that He likes the fact that we (those of us with which he disagrees) are footing most of the bill for those missionaries that church sends out.
If He doesn’t support Baptist polity, which his church’s practices clearly show, then why else would he, or anyone else, think the other 47K churches should support those missionaries?
Sooooo….you are suggesting that churches with beliefs/practices different than that which you hold (that still fall under the BF&M2000 mind you) should not be allowed to send IMB/NAMB supported missionaries because YOU don’t want to pay to support them? Have we have moved past “quotas” on entity heads, and moved into quotas on missionaries? May God truly help us if this is the face of the “Traditionalist” wing within the SBC.
That pastor dislikes the convention? He said that? Please offer proof. Otherwise dont spread rumors, lies , and gossip.
Does he disagree with you on the Gospel? I ask, because mst Southern Baptists agree with JDG on the Gospel?
Methinks your hatred is showing.
Phillip, I’ve read much better comments from you over there. No need for a drive by here. Just state some facts. Use quotes if necessary.