The Cooperative Program is political.
This one fact, more than any other, has hindered its growth. I think our distaste for the political aspects of the CP is wrongful on our part. I’m writing to convince you of that.
It is undeniably true that denominational politics can become evil. This is equally true, however, for anything that sinful human beings touch. If you tell me that you don’t like corrupt politics, that makes me admire you. If you tell me that you don’t like politics at all, I consider you to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. Whether your disavowal of politics represents your naiveté or your demagoguery I’ll leave for you to sort out.
Politics is simply this: The system by which multiple people decide what to do. The “Cooperative” in “Cooperative Program” is simply another word for politics.
What is the alternative to politics? It is neither more nor less than, “I will not be bothered by the opinions of others. I will not negotiate. I will not build consensus. I will not labor toward agreement. Rather, having the means to do what I wish without regard for others, I choose fiat dictatorship over my smaller, less effective realm rather than politics by which we accomplish something greater together.” The demagogue will rapidly embrace this approach and dress up his aloofness from politics as something noble.
The naïve person declares that he dislikes politics and then replaces one political system with another. He dumps the Cooperative Program and builds a network in its place. His new politics may be better—more tranquil, less corrupt—if for no other reason by virtue of its being newer. Eventually, however, his network will face a decision that will reveal profound disagreement among its members. The descent into politics is inexorable for groups of human beings trying to work together.
I want to offer another idea: POLITICS IS LOVE.
Or, at the very least, love is political. It is political for a number of reasons.
- Loving sister churches disposes us to work in cooperation with them. Love relishes the community of politics over the autonomy of independence.
- When we see ways to improve the work, loving sister churches motivates us to accomplish the improvements not for ourselves alone, but for all of the churches. Love embraces the interdependence of politics.
- Love is patient, we are reminded. Loving sister churches means giving them time and space to consider our proposed improvements. Love endures the process of politics.
- Love is not arrogant. It acknowledges that sister churches might educate us, rather than vice-versa. Love commits to the give-and-take of politics.
When we love our sister churches and love the work of the gospel, we will deign to be involved with them in decision-making. At its essence this is what the Cooperative Program is. That’s why the Cooperative Program cannot be identified with the status quo. The Cooperative Program is not the end decision; it is the process by which we arrived at it. Most serious arguments against the Cooperative Program boil down to impatience or indifference with regard to sister churches, in my opinion. To reject the Cooperative Program is not merely to say, “The budget doesn’t reflect the right priorities.” Rather, it is to say, “The budget doesn’t reflect MY priorities, and I reject the system by which I should try to lead you to see why.”
Don’t eschew politics. Embrace love instead. Get involved in the process. Enter dialogue with sister churches and work to make the Cooperative Program better and stronger.
By the way, Paul Chitwood is also writing today about the importance of Baptist polity and process.
Yesterdays revolutionary is today’s status quo. It has always been that way. The CP itself was not immediately agreed upon or seen as the future when it was introduced. And over time it has been tweaked and changed and challenged, and will continue to be in the future. I wrote about the history of the CP introduction recently on my blog.
To the point, CP is political as you defined it. Everyone is involved in politics, even those who say they are not. No stance is a stance! Hopefully dialogue will move us towards each other and not apart as is often the case in politics. The church should stand out in the world in that we can work together amongst our differences, unlike others in the realm of governmental politics.
That’s right Dr. Barber. Cooperation means compromise [to use your words consensus / negotiation]. Especially as it relates to the outworking of how we serve God we think that compromise is a dirty word. So we each take the “high ground” in defending the priorities we believe God is leading us to support.
But at least each one of us is as pure as the wind driven snow. That’s the most important thing, right? Even if the sum total of our work is minimized by balkanization.
“The “Cooperative” in “Cooperative Program” is simply another word for politics.”
Yep, so true … but it sure would be nice if “Cooperative” in “Cooperative Program” implied unity instead. It once did. Local churches rallied as one man to support evangelism and missions at home and on international fields. Now, many SBC churches are beginning to look through theo-political glasses to support or bypass CP giving. A sad state of affairs when the CP is held hostage to our wrangling with each other. God’s blessing falls on unity, not division – the CP needs to be blessed again. IF my people … THEN will I. But will we?
Max, take it from a guy who has given way too many hours to the study of Southern Baptist History: The moment you are contemplating when “Cooperative” didn’t mean “politics” is a moment that never took place.
Yes, I understand that to be the case at the national SBC level. My perspective re: past CP “unity” was when my family were members of a large SBC association of churches (in the 1970s) that really did work together to promote the importance of CP’s grand scale of evangelism and mission. Church members rallied to the cause and dug deep into their pockets. The “we can make a difference” took hold! It was a blessing to be naive back then and not aware of top-level political maneuverings and elephants in the room.
It is the attempted point of my post to argue that:
1. The experience you describe actually IS politics. If you “did work together to promote the importance of CP’s grand scale of evangelism and mission,” then some people led that, some people followed that, and groups made decisions about how to do so.
2. Politics does NOT equal “rancor and unsavory manipulation,” but instead simply equals “people working together to build consensus and move forward together.” Sometimes that’s hard to do. Sometimes that’s easy to do. Always that’s worthwhile to do. A large part of our present malaise is that people, rather than carefully bemoaning CORRUPT politics bemoan ALL politics, resulting in disengagement rather than reform.
I’ll say it again: politics is love.
Politics is people. It comes from the Greek polites for citizen and the Greek polis for city. It’s a tool not a moral standing in my opinion and observation. Politics can be used for good and politics HAVE BEEN used for evil (see Germany, Nazi.)
Love is demonstrated in how we deal with each other so perhaps a better way to say it is that love should fill our politics to overflowing.
I think, though, that there are times when I–and maybe some of you have experienced this, too–focus on politics as if I have to do something in a temporal time frame that will reverberate eternally. I don’t think we actually can do that other than by contributing to and participating in a Kingdom plan. God has invited us to be part of his plan and by seeking him and doing it his way we ensure that everything we do has maximum eternal impact. The rest is just wood, hay, and stubble.
Most politics is wood, hay, and stubble, to be honest.
And everybody said Amen and Amen! (or should have)
This is a well written post today Mr Barber. Thank you.
I think you could also add that participation in the politics of both our state and national conventions is an act of love and cooperation. Too many complain from the outside without taking the time on the inside to help enact the changes they seek.
As a member of a cooperating SBC church with a new pastor from outside our convention, I am doing my best to help him get up to speed on the Coperative Program, Lottie, Annie, etc. I have proposed that we increase our CP giving for this year based on available funds and hope to increase it with the new budget for next year too.
We have been greatly blessed, helped and shepherded by the very people who are funded by our CP offering. That is two pastors from the State Convention and multiple pastors from the nearby SBC seminary. We have seen the good that comes from CP funding on a personal level.
Awesome! That’s EXACTLY what I’m encouraging, and it’s exactly what encourages me!
I’m a southern baptist…I luv politics.
At the SBC level there is a feeling of political alienation. Check the attendance stats. The last big push was the GCR, started by an SBC leader, carried forward by a select committee where 2/3 of the members were megachurch people, ending with NAMB empowered to control their budget and get a transformational leader…that’s about it. I’m not optimistic about much change at the SBc level…unless…we have some committed and charismatic leadership. Bart should run for something. I’ll vote for him.
Show me just one new CP idea at the national level before I die.
The states…maybe, but then that’s where most of the CP money is.
I note that the easiest place to practice politics and have change is the local church. They have changed their CP posture over the past decades.
William, I 100% agree that we must conduct our national and state politics in such a way as to instill confidence in people about the process rather than alienate people. That’s so important!
William T
Amen re. local church. I will add that the local church is where the action is (or should be). I strongly believe that we need to spend less time correcting and building the convention and more time strengthening and building the church.
Bart: “… the Cooperative Program cannot be identified with the status quo.”
Bart is correct, political behavior is pervasive and all systems are political, as some would suggest, and our experiences certainly suggest such. Ever said, “how in the world did we get this way” or “why did we not do more” or something in these veins? Given rationality is more theoretical than manifest, possible than realized, decisions are a mixture of interests (of various influence potential) and they represent a ‘place’ between those interests driving for greater change and those interests seeking to attenuate its progress. That ‘place’ is called … status quo. On this point Bart is not correct; that is, his implied assertion that a political decision (e.g., CP) cannot be status quo. Political behavior can both change status quo (correctly implicit in Bart’s argument) and it can arrest its change and all points between (correctly implicit in William’s argument). Although status quo is somewhat in flux, in a healthy organization it will mostly function within a specified range, and in a healthy organization it is possible and even desirable to raise or lower its level due to system and environmental need.
The Cooperative Program is both a program and a process for programming and its greatest challenge as a program and a process for programming (i.e., GCG) was met with it (i.e., CP) retaining its eminence among funding mechanisms, although somewhat diminished and taking a hit in terms of its underlying philosophy: cooperative effort around an agreed set of goals. A new status quo now exists and it is the place where those driving interests for change (GCG) were met by those interests resisting such (CP). There was a political decision, a compromise, given neither side had the power to overcome the other (whereas it has been said politics is the art of compromise, most interest groups seek sufficient political power so that they will not need to compromise and when compromise is the only way forward, leaders opting for such are often accused of betraying their principles instead of being praised for seeking an adult decision in a world populated with competing interests). The Cooperative Program and GCG and the nature of both determine how the convention will do business in the present and intermediate future. And on this point William is correct.
Given institutions have a greater tendency toward inertia than change, status quo is powerful and comfortable and difficult to overcome. There is a reason that Jesus instructs us to deny ourselves and regularly die for the gospel: in our habits of dying we resist the comfortable that constrains us and by doing so we are then freed to move forward. In the best of worlds both Bart and William are correct. Seaworthy ships have anchors and sails and the best captains know when to use them.
Good observations, Norm. Status quo is fluid, but usually within well-established borders.
Very good article. I don’t see how anyone could argue against your proposals. The reason there is so much heat and so little light in the SBC I think is at least partly due to the Church Growth Movement of the 70’s and 80’s.
It fractured fellowship by focusing on individual church growth as an end in itself. Of course, it didn’t start out that way, but quickly became a contest where bigger is best, even at the cost of drawing members from smaller churches and destroying those churches in the process. I think the Crystal Cathedral is a standing monument to what happens when the “means” becomes an “end”–the end is not pretty.
Another contributing factor to the lack of unity in our denomination I think can partly be attributed to the Conservative Resurgence. Let me say, I was an active part and I understand what the battle was about and what was at stake. But, it was war has casualties. The weapon of that war was control of the political system. Again, it was of necessity to do things this way, but the cure, like chemotherapy, had great and lasting side effects. It turned bitter in the mouths of many. And, what did we win? I don’t think we know what was truly won or lost and might not for years.
A third issue that came to mind is that many conflate the terms “politic” with “rhetoric.” Rhetoric came into vogue in the 5th century BC with the Sophists. Truth did not matter–winning the argument was everything–the means was the end. It was this period that saw the rise of the profession we now call “lawyers.” This period oversaw the nearly complete decline of the once stellar culture of Athens. Of course, political discourse dove right into the dumper. I say this to point out that it is not “politics” that is at the heart of the problem, but “rhetoric”–the desire to win an argument at all costs.
I might say, I hate compromise. It is not my basic inclination. I am highly competitive. For me, my basic ideology is: “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” However, I realize how corrupt that basic leaning in my flesh can really be. So, I try to focus on passages that exhort us to unity as both a means, and an end. I am fairly certain that if my problem was not a problem of basic human nature, there would not be so many passages exhorting us to be “one.”
Living in a political environment is not optional: making politics a negative, counter-productive process is optional.
Your last sentence says it all.
I agree as well Bart,
The CP was born because of the “politics is love” concept. The question is do we (those willing to be called SBC) have leaders that can lead this type of politics and get results. The void of effective leadership is the enemy of love in politics. Finding, identifying, and engaging those effective leaders is the challenge and solution to discover the love in SBC politics once again.
Just a quick thought but I think what some may object to is not politics per se but rather a good ol’ boy network. See definition from urban dictionary.
1) A series of contacts (relatives, friends, friends of friends, ect.) who are willing to help accomplish a task. Usually each contact has some sort of specialty that makes them beneficial to a specific task. Many Good ‘Ol Boy Networks operate on a favor system.
A political system which is so ambiguous or undefined that it allows for “good ol’ boy” politics is not healthy. It will lead to an automatic marginalizing of fringe or outside voices. It will lead to a “might makes right” decision making procedure. etc. etc.