The SBC Plodder comes out of retirement to bless us again with his insights!
Sixtysomething retired micropastor Plodder and thirtysomething megapastor J. D. Greear see the Cooperative Program in remarkably, or frighteningly, similar terms.
Greear, something of a rock star among younger SBCers has a blog article up
on Southeastern seminary’s blog site Between The Times: Our Church, The SBC, and the Cooperative Program
Greear states plainly that he appreciates the Cooperative Program but identifies the main problem with it as being the reality that “so much of what is given to the CP stays right here in the states.” He uses his state convention, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, as an example. The BSCNC keeps about 65% of CP gifts in state.
This causes, he writes, a “disturbingly small fraction” of the total to actually make it to the “mission fields,” a phrase he sets out with quotation marks, presumably meaning our two mission boards.
He declares his appreciation for SBC leaders, his BSCNC leaders, the good things they do, and the difficulty of significant change in mature organizations; however, he notes “that it will be a long journey to get our [CP] dollar allocations back to the right levels.”
I’m a full generation older than Greear but would say almost exactly the same things. I have no quarrel with our leadership, state or national. I appreciate the work done here in Georgia through the Georgia Baptist Convention. It is good work. But giving a dollar to the CP and watching it whittled down to about thirty cents for our two mission boards leads me to ponder methods that give greater efficiency to my mission dollars.
I would however, point out for Greear that states have for decades kept a little under two-thirds of a CP dollar, so changing this wouldn’t be getting back to anything. It would be a completely new direction and a proper one, both he and I would say.
Greear also intriguingly writes, “I don’t think there’s any question that some of the institutions must cease to function, at least at their current levels” leaving one to ask, “OK, J.D., which ones?”
Greear declares his intent to increase CP giving with the caveat that “[w]hile we are doing that, however, we will continue to give directly to institutions we are particularly excited about, bypassing some of the unnecessary bureaucracy. As the system gets leaner, our giving will increase.”
It seem to me that this statement can be generalized and should be seen as what lies ahead for the SBC, her institutions, the Cooperative Program, and mission support. The Cooperative Program will continue to be our main giving program but direct giving will become more and more attractive and will increase proportionately to the CP.
I see state conventions getting “leaner” because the money is not coming in through the CP, not because they choose to keep less of it. And, I don’t see the SBC getting any leaner in the sense of significant institutional change.
Has anyone forgotten that we went through a high profile self-study process called the Great Commission Resurgence that, for all the noise it made, changed very little?
As a result of the GCR process and report, many state conventions have voluntarily made commitments to begin adjusting downward what they keep of the CP with a goal of an equal split.
While that is good, I have noted that 50/50 probably means, at best, 55/45 and in some cases even 60/40, hardly the kind of change that will move Greear and likeminded pastors to conclude that the CP is a more efficient method for distribution of their mission dollars.
One would have to conclude, either disparingly or dispassionately, that the kind of “getting back” to the “right” levels Greear envisions will never happen.
Which leaves both Greear and his older colleague, me, to conclude that while the Cooperative Program is a wonderful giving plan, and while we appreciate our state and SBC leaders, we desire to get more in mission from our dollar than the CP permits. In my case that meant most of my church’s mission dollars went to the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings. In Greear’s case it means that those plus, presumably, other direct giving consume most of his mission dollars.
I see nothing that will change our common view on this.
IMO, good stewardship requires each church to weigh it’s desired outcome for its missions giving and then give accordingly. For our church, the CP is our “default” missions giving that forms the base of our missions budget. Beyond that, we give to our association, directly to IMB, support two missionaries from our church serving with other agencies, and plan to sponsor a church plant in the near future. We give significantly to CP (10+% of undesignated receipts), but CP only accounts for a little more than half of our total missions giving.
William, I know that you think I overstate the case about the importance of CP for the future of the Convention. You maybe right. After all, you have lived far longer than I and you have age and experience going for you 🙂 (I don’t know why that brings the 1984 Reagan/Mondale debate to mind.) I do hope that the reality is that I have overstated the case, but J.D. Greear’s article certainly does not feed that hope. In fact, it does just the opposite. Can the SBC survive and thrive if CP continues to decline and more churches adopt… Read more »
The SBC will survive, but it may look different. I think CP will continue to be part of the missions pie, because there is value in supporting state work, seminary education, and the other things that CP giving provides and CP is a good way to cover a broad spectrum of quality ministries. At the same time, however, a new generation of pastors wants to see more money going to what is actually missions — reaching those places where the gospel is not yet proclaimed. I cannot stand up before my people with integrity and say CP is missions when… Read more »
Todd, Thank you for your kind response. Perhaps without even knowing it, you have stated the crux of the problem when you said: “At the same time, however, a new generation of pastors wants to see more money going to what is actually missions — reaching those places where the gospel is not yet proclaimed. I fully believe that missions should be “to the ends of the earth.” However, when you seem to say (and I could be misreading you, so I apologize if that is the case) that “actual missions” is only to places where the gospel has yet… Read more »
As a former NAMB missionary, I am indeed including NAMB in my “missions” definition and calculations 🙂 At the same time, I give a higher priority to IMB missions than I do NAMB — but that priority is already reflected in CP allocations.
Part of my support for GCR was because it increased support for IMB and because I have long thought that NAMB should refocus their efforts toward church planting missions in major population centers and areas in NA where there is minimal evangelical influence and less emphasis funding state convention and associational infrastructure.
I am not offering here a precise definition of what should be included in missions — but I think it is fair to say that there is much included in CP that is NOT missions.
To me, calling CP giving “missions” proves the oft-repeated assessment by Stephen Neill, “When everything is mission, nothing is mission.”
Todd, Thanks for the reply. I fully understand your prioritizing IMB missions over NAMB missions and other categories that you might even describe as “NOT missions.” Of course, how one defines “missions” will continue to be a point of disagreement. You might define “missions” narrowly whereas others might define it more broadly. Some might think the focus of the Great Commission should be on evangelizing the world while others might see the GC as making disciples, which includes evangelizing the world, but also helping churches to be healthy so that they in turn can help Christians (both at home and… Read more »
I’m not inclined to start naming positions and getting hate mail from my friends that do good work (though not mission-work) 🙂
Let’s put it this way: When I tell my folks to give to missions, they are thinking of church planters and cross-cultural missionaries making disciples where the church is not. The farther removed we are from world evangelization the less legitimate we are in calling the work “missions”.
My degree is in Christian Missions — a “missions” degree program is not meant to prepare you to be a church health strategist, a ethicist/lobbyist, a professor in Old Testament, a pastor to pastors, or a blogger. It prepares you to do missions. — We can discuss a precise definition, but suffice it to say that it seems evident that the common understanding of the term is narrower than we want to apply to the CP. 🙂
Howell, I would think that your state is unique because of the number of Native Americans who reside in the Land of Enchantment. On the other hand, there’s my state. Researchers tell us that we are just under 50% evangelical. So one way to look at is that my state is 51% unreached. With that in view, then surely one could argue that there is plenty of “mission” work to be down right here in our Judea. Another way to look at it is in terms of access to the gospel. And I think this strikes at Todd’s point. That… Read more »
William, Thank you for the post and for expressing well the philosophy that you and J. D. Greear espouse. I understand the exercise of stewardship reflected in that philosophy from the perspective of one individual church. However, I share Howell’s concern about what that philosophy, should it prosper even more, will mean for the collective exercise of stewardship in the convention as a whole. Consider this unintended consequence of your philosophy. As more and more churches divert resources directly to their favorite denominational ministries — generally international and North American missions — they see themselves as voting with their dollars… Read more »
Good article and insight. The advanced calculus required to sort out the current Cooperative Program funding percentages for each state and then the re-gifting of money back to the states, etc. certainly has to somewhat mind-boggling for most. In practical terms, funds pass through too many hands on their way from offering plate and mission field. And of course, like our current governments, nothing can be cut at any level, state, national or otherwise without the varying interest groups threatening revolt (or literally praying down judgment on SBC entities like one group that experienced funding cuts). Our CP is often… Read more »
Our church does very little societal giving; we essentially tithe through local and state associations.
Having said that, these discussions always give me the impression that we need to choose between Spirit led stewardship or denominational loyalty.
Here’s how I read J.D.’s post: * Summit is satisfied with the current leadership in its state convention and the SBC. * Summit isn’t satisfied with the current division of dollars between state/national/international causes. * Summit recognizes, however, the importance of the Cooperative Program to all SBC missions endeavors. * Summit is going to increase its CP giving. * Summit is going to increase its CP giving even more as the state convention works its long-range plan to reapportion funds (towards 50/50). Those states which have adopted official plans to get to 50/50 are going to rely both on increased… Read more »
Second paragraph should read, “…incrementally over time and more so as…” Sorry for the typo.
Also, it’s probably worth noting that J.D.’s blogpost was written from the perspective of a pastor informing his people, and not necessarily as a blogger writing a white paper on the CP and GCRTF report.
Sorry for the triple post.
I shouldn’t have said, “they’re being criticized for it.” No one here has specifically criticized J.D. or Summit. But it’s pretty evident that a couple of the commentors disagree with his position and the church’s giving plans.
Something interesting is that I talked to an sbc pastor this past week who blamed the decline of the CP on Jerry Falwell and other independent Baptists infiltrating the SBC, encouraging us to adopt their missions mindset.
Can someone tell me if a church gives directly to the SBC in Nashville, rather than through the states, whether the SBC cuts a check back to the states based on those funds? I heard that recently, and could not believe it. Does anyone know? Giving is a complex issue in the SBC. In my opinion, the only real choices are between having an atomosphere where churches give to the causes in which they are interested, or having an atmosphere were a uniform giving method (to the CP through the States). If the SBC wants to grow, I believe it… Read more »
I’ve been doing the Lord’s work today and have been away…fishing fo fish…and would respond to the sage commenters above: We aren’t in a mode where the choice is either societal or cooperative. It is both. It’s always been both. The balance has changed and will change. Even Todd and his church with stellar CP giving above 10% (about double the average) gives most of their mission dollars societally. Howell does the same as does any SBCer who supports Lottie and Annie. I have commended the states for making plans to move to 50/50 but please don’t overlook my link… Read more »