Another “Plodder” examination of the workings of the Cooperative Program. William Thornton is the SBC Plodder and always has an interesting perspective on the SBC’s inner workings.
Editor’s note: If you want a good laugh, follow the link and read the Rev. Dr. Thornton’s latest post about Theological Triage. Nice work. Now, back to the CP
I blogged earlier in Cooperative Program Confusion about how state conventions, by utilizing accounting presentation techniques that are perfectly reasonable and understandable to them, probably confuse average Southern Baptists about the distribution of Cooperative Program gifts from the churches.
An average of about 63% of all monies given in churches through the Cooperative Program is retained by respective state conventions. Many would like to see this move to a 50/50 split. That’s clear enough, right?
Well, no.
Read the following paragraph, a report in SBC Life on the recent meeting of state convention executives:
[State convention executives] agreed to begin moving toward a 50/50 split of Cooperative Program receipts, after shared ministry expenses have been subtracted, between the respective state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention.
There you have it: 50/50 – half to the state conventions, half to be distributed to the SBC mission boards, seminaries and the rest.
Right?
Wrong.
Note the phrase after shared ministry expenses have been subtracted.
These shared ministry expenses are monies that stay with the state convention, every single penny so labeled. There is nothing nefarious about this. The explanation is that if states are going to collect for SBC entities, let them deduct their expenses.
Reasonable enough.
But then, if God is in the Cooperative Program concept, the devil is in the details. Some states allot as much as 20% of their entire budget to these “shared ministry expenses.”
Presto! 50/50 becomes 60/40. Only 40 cents on a CP dollar gets out of the state and on to seminaries and mission boards, yet state conventions may accurately say that this is a 50/50 split.
State executives have sensibly recognized the value of limiting this soft accounting practice and recently agreed among themselves to limit shared ministry expenses to 10%. Good. Now…
Voila! 50/50 only becomes 55/45.
What SBCers can expect out of this 50/50 talk is that state conventions will make a good faith effort to move from keeping 63 cents of every CP dollar to keeping only 55 cents on that dollar.
Good. To take about a 13% cut in revenues is a move in the right direction and is not an insignificant development. But neither does it convey much clarity.
I’d bet that the average SBC pastor or layperson if they are told there is a 50/50 split, thinks that 50/50 is 50/50, not 55/45.
Nope. 50/50 is actually 55/45.
But whaddoIknow, I’m just a plodder in this business.
Percentages from state conventions don’t pay the bills. Dollars do.
All the folks who shout “Autonomy” when reasonable giving percentages are suggested for local churches somehow change their tunes when it comes to establishing reasonable percentages for state conventions.
Both are autonomous. If we’re going to set up goals for one, then we should be willing to set up goals for the other just to be consistent.
I don’t think the tune is being changed. Church A has no authority over Church B’s giving. However, Church A, as a contributing member of State Convention A, has every right through their messengers to vote and move for the State Convention to spend money in a certain way. Usually, if a majority of other member churches agree, that happens. And even if enough members of the state convention don’t all agree on a 50/50 split of CP money forwarded, I can’t imagine most of them want to be told it’s 50/50 when it’s really 60/40.
Taking that argument further, North Carolina Church A, which gives to North Carolina State Convention A, has no right to push for changes in the proportional giving formula that Alabama Church G should desire from Alabama State Convention G.
But this is exactly what is happening–people from one state trying to tell people from another state how to manage their contributions.
If a state wants to give 60/40 and call it macaroni, they have the autonomy to do so, right? No other state convention, or church from another state, or seminary from another state, can tell them what to do just like no other church can tell a different church what to do.
My friend and I open a lemonade stand. I buy all the lemons, sugar and cups. After it’s done, we split the profits 50/50 — after our shared expenses have been paid. Because I am reimbursed for my costs, I actually get 60% of gross. But remember, I bought all that stuff. It really is 50/50!!
There’s a difference between saying that you think everyone in the various state conventions of the SBC should push for a 50/50 split, and violating someone’s autonomy by making them do it. Just like people from church are constantly telling other churches to follow certain evangelism programs or to love Jesus more. Talking or giving ideas isn’t a violation of autonomy. Besides, if you tell me that my church can’t make suggestions to your church, then we’re just stuck in an endless loop of self-contradiction. Making suggestions isn’t a question of autonomy.
On a sidenote, I wonder how much the 50/50 split idea would gain traction as a wide movement from messengers in the various state conventions had it not been complicated with all the other GCRTF stuff.
I actually agree with you that talking and giving ideas does not violate autonomy because it doesn’t force anyone to do anything. I think the convention would have been just fine recommending a 10% or more CP goal for churches a few years ago. The convention balked, however, citing church autonomy.
My main point is that if it is okay to recommend a number to a state convention, it should also be fair game to recommend a number to a church. Like you say, we’re not forcing anything. We’re just setting a worthy standard.
If a 50/50 split is worthy at the state convention level, then a 90/10 split is worthy at the individual church level.
Let’s deal with the lemonade illustration for a second. If the state convention is bearing the shared costs, why should that NOT be excluded before dividing up the net proceeds?
It depends on what is being used and how it is being phrased. If a state convention has 20% of expenses in “Shared Costs”, that seems a bit high and I would want to know why so much money is being spent on what should be a minor category. But the real issue seems to be the “soft accounting” William cites where the numbers are given to look one way in promotional materials, but there’s a tiny tiny asterisk with a few paragraphs of disclaimers at the bottom of the page.
Just one more reason that I never want to be a denominational worker. I just don’t understand the ins and outs of the whole process.
But the solution is simple (beyond mathematical equations). If people will give more and churches will give more and states will give more then IMB and NAMB can do more.
Dave, nice simple plan. Who could argue?
OK, I will . . . if by “doing more” means more missions/evangelism, then your simple admonition is as brilliant as they come.
But, if doing more means “better offices, bigger budgets, more family members getting cushy jobs,” then why give more?
I wish your simple admonition could rule the day, but I just think there’s a missing something that requires an Einsteinian constant to make the equation work. Somehow 1+1 ends up still being 1.
I’m longing for the day when state conventions stop battling for this money. They just can’t seem to let it go. They need to transparently pass on to the national level at least half of the money sent to them.
Dollars always pay the bills. Percentages never do. And we all agree that every level of SBC life is autonomous.
And I tried to make it plain that the states are operating in accord with longstanding historical practice.
Churches who care will look at the CP split bottom line: How much of my CP dollar is my state convention keeping? The explanations, charts and graphs about “shared expenses” etc, just don’t matter.
Again, the state executives recognize there is a problem here.
I guess what I’m getting at is that the state conventions reduced the amounts they forwarded to the national convention because the churches reduced the money they forwarded to the state. When you follow this money trail, it leads back to the individual churches.
Granted, we can’t tell individual churches what to give, but if they bypass the state and give directly to the national, why is it that everybody faults the states for keeping more than they otherwise would have kept? They were pretty much forced to do this because of the “church to national” workaround.
Does ANYBODY ELSE feel that perhaps the IMB itself needs to bear some of the responsibility for this situation since they directly appealed to churches for special funding which resulted in the chain reaction to begin with?
It just seems like we’re picking on the state conventions a lot, and I think the reality is that the situation is a big, intertwined mess, with other entities (churches, IMB, seminaries, etc.) just as responsible for this as the state conventions.
“My main point is that if it is okay to recommend a number to a state convention, it should also be fair game to recommend a number to a church. Like you say, we’re not forcing anything. We’re just setting a worthy standard.”
Who is we? You personally? The state convention? The SBC? My congregation is a self governed by its members. No Convention bureaucrat or state convention board or even a vote of the SBC can influence the budget of my church one whit. On the other hand, the churches of the SBC can certainly direct its agencies and entities (whether at the state or national levels) to spend money in accordance with the priorities dictated to it by Southern Baptist congregations.
The state convention or the SBC is not a church. Stop speaking as if it were.
Also – just what are these “shared expenses?” Let me answer that question. CP Promotion specialists (most of whom make handsome salaries with company cars and big expense accounts), state papers (what a joke!), in some states the office of the State Exec who makes well over six figures, and even some programs.
Are you telling me that some of those items could not be reduced?
O yes – there is a problem with the state conventions. A big one that will not easily go away no matter how many people assert their autonomy.
“Who is WE?”
I was referring to the messengers of the SBC and their refusal in Nashville (I think) to set a 10% church CP goal.
No, it’s not binding. For that matter, neither are the SBC GCR recommendations. Each trustee board of each agency has the autonomy to take or leave SBC annual meeting suggestions.
Also, the churches don’t direct the agencies. The trustees elected at annual meetings do.
I’m not treating conventions as if they were churches. I’m merely stating that they possess the same kind of self-governing organizational autonomy.
1. By “we” you meant the messengers to the SBC acting in a official capacity in behalf of the churches calling for something to be done. Got it.
2. Question. Is an official reccomendation from the SBC to an agency of the SBC authoritative in any way?
3. Other then a blatant violation of existing by-laws, should trustees of the national agencies of the SBC ignore (or “take or leave”) the recommendations of the SBC? If so, why?
4. If the trustees of the SBC agencies are fully autonomous in the same form and manner as local churches, to whom are the trustees accountable?
5. If the trustees are completely autonomous from the SBC, what is their role, function, and fiduciary responsibility to the SBC? Is there any such responsibility?
Is a SBC recommendation authoritative? Great question. Dr. Mohler made it clear at the convention when this question arose that all recommendations were phrased in such a way that the trustees were asked to “consider” taking various actions. The SBC does not micromanage agencies, but is certainly entitled to refer suggestions approved by those attending a convention.
Should trustees ignore a recommendation? Perhaps, if it does not square with the agency’s own long term plans. More likely than ignoring a request would be carrying it out in a slightly modified manner or perhaps a different time frame.
To whom are trustees accountable? Well, they answer to the convention’s messengers in assembly. For state entities, it would be at the state convention, and for national entities, it would be at the national convention.
They are self-governing within their own spheres. In other words, the SBC cannot tell a state Baptist institution what to do. That state college or orphanage can receive information from the SBC but fulfills their fiduciary responsibility at the local convention level. All state convention leaders, for example, are responsible to the state annual meeting messengers, not the SBC ones.
“I was referring to the messengers of the SBC and their refusal in Nashville (I think) to set a 10% church CP goal.”
Rick,
Sorry that I have to correct you, but the messengers at the 2006 Convention in Greensboro, NC did not get a chance to refuse to set the 10% CP goal because the Ad Hoc CP Committee revised their final report to remove the 10% language. Why would they do that? You can read my very first SBCVoices post, https://www.sbcvoices.com/what-does-it-mean-to-enthusiastically-support-the-cooperative-program/ for the background.
I have no doubt that the final report of this two-year long study — including the original 10% goal — would have been approved by the messengers at the same Convention that CP was front and center in Frank Page’s first ballot election as President. Of course, he defeated one of the most well known megachurch pastors whose church contributed .27% to CP. Makes one wonder about the pressure that was applied to the Ad Hoc committee by certain megachurch pastors to make the committee revise their final report. Also might put into perspective Morris Chapman’s opinion regarding the GCR. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Thanks for reminding me of the facts. I do think we can trace some of the GCR vision to the megachurch pushback against the original CP Committee recommendation. Oddly, everyone seems to point only to Dr. Akin’s chapel message, but I think all of the CP related recommendations point back to these events, as your excellent article reveals.
The state that I live in has several State Convention positions which are largely ceremonial (meaning other people do the work you’d expect from the position) and are held for men who serve generally their entire career in the state.
My personal favorite is the position which pays a little over $100K for a music person charged with organizing convention music programs (choral concerts, handbell concerts, etc.) around the state each year. However, it’s the church hosting the event that actually does all the planning, coordinating, advertising, etc. while the state person shows up and shakes hands and generally will take credit for the whole thing.
Our state has many avenues where money goes with very little tangible results at the state or even local level. However, since the programs have been in place for decades, money still goes to them.
A friend of mine working for the state convention is amazed at how much money he feels is wasted on travel, lodging, and food for meetings which are largely irrelevant and could be solved with either a conference call or an online conferencing software setup.
Then again, I sure everyone will have stories similar to mine…
Dave,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the GCR give the task of Cooperative Program promotion to the state conventions?
If that is so, this will require at least one person (leader) and printing (production costs) and some ministry assistant help. This would be seen as an added cost by state conventions.
Bill: I am well aware of several of the state church music positions, none of which are ceremonial. They have one administrative secretary and several part-time coordinators of the various areas of their expertise (keyboard, handbells, children’s choirs, worship bands, etc.). All of these people have full-time employment elsewhere, and are, essentially, paid as contract consultants to organize festivals and workshops in those areas. And those “ceremonial” music execs? They’re on the road, constantly, holding training meetings for music ministers in various areas of the state, serving as guest worship leaders in churches on Sundays, etc., and coordinating the planning of the consultants as well as their budgets, which seem to get smaller along the way. None are “ceremonial,” Bill. In fact, I have served in church music positions all of my life, as well as on the music faculties of Baptist colleges. I’ve loved all of my service, but I have frequently said to myself and others that I do not believe I could have ever harnessed the energy to perform the tasks these state music administrators handle. Yours may be an exceptional case, but I suggest you look into it a bit more.
I’ve put out fact and figures because I have felt that even most of the people who eat and sleep SBC matters cannot explain this CP percentage stuff, not to assail the states for how much they keep. The fact is that the average kept in-state hasn’t varied a whole lot and is actually a little less than it has been.
All of this should be driven by the churches. If churches are giving less to the CP and favoring more direct giving to the mission boards (and the figures I have seen indicate that churches have increased giving to the IMB/NAMB through the offerings relative to what they give through the CP) then state conventions should recognize this.
I don’t know of anyone who maintains that the route to increasing CP percentages by the churches is to keep more of it in-state.
Autonomous state conventions, many of them, have implemented plans to give more to the SBC share. The recognition by state executives that 10% should be the the ceiling for ‘shared expenses’, is itself an indication that they realize some credibility is lost in the way they have attempted to promote the CP.
I forgot to William’s name in the title line, and also forgot to mark it as a guest blogger. I corrected that, but I want to make sure everyone knows that this is the work of the Plodder himself.
I am grateful for the healthy discussion regarding these important issues. I would like to clarify that not all state conventions are identical. In fact, no two are identical! This behooves us all to avoid sweeping generalities.
For example, the state convention which I serve (the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia) truly gives 50.5% of CP receipts to SBC causes. We retain 49.5%. We deduct no “shared expenses” at all. We have no staff member whose sole function is to promote the CP. All of our staff does that due to our conviction that there is a biblical precedent for cooperative ministry. We have no statewide musical specialist either.
I do not mention that we have no shared expenses or CP specialist or music specialist because I think these things are bad or unnecessary. To the contrary, I’m sure that there are some conventions where these roles bear fruit for the kingdom. My primary point in addressing these examples is to clarify that each state convention functions differently from the others.
One other thought: I know that it sounds like individual states end up with as much (or more) CP money than the SBC does. This is misleading. The reason is that the SBC has 42 streams of support (receipts from each of the state conventions) while each state convention has 1 (its own). The convergence (and sum) of the 42 streams that flow to the SBC greatly dwarfs the amount that is retained by any individual state convention. Rightly so! This is part of the genius of the CP design that we’ve historically embraced.
If each believer will give to the Lord through his local church as he should, and if each church will give to the Lord generously through her state convention, and if each state convention will relay on to the SBC at least 50% of the CP monies it receives, the Lord’s work will suffer no lack.
I pastored in Virginia before the SBCV came into being. Keep up the good work (and the generous giving).
Interesting that the new state conventions, who have no legacy institutions or ministries (schools, children’s homes, etc) to fund, are around 50/50, meaning that international missions moves from about twenty cents to twenty-five cents on that CP dollar that is deposited in the church offering plate.
There are those who would say that a quarter is not enough.
The CP whatever its current trends and issues, is a huge, solidly established funding stream. That completely new state convention can almostly seamlessly tap into it is remarkable. The CBF, in contrast, has never been able to tap into that stream.