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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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 —… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.