It’s called The COOPERATIVE Program, not the Cooperative Program CAFETERIA. Necessary background reading (not that anyone actually reads relevant articles):
Alaska Baptists vote to withhold CP funds, this is a thorough article by George Schroeder, associate VP at the SBC Executive Committee. If you think Schroeder’s piece is biased then show me how. Quotes from both sides.
Ronnie Floyd, president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, said the action taken by Alaska’s state convention “is a unilateral breach of a 95-year system as our most trusted funding mechanism,” and added: “The Cooperative Program is not a cafeteria plan.”
Randy Covington, the state convention’s executive director, spoke in favor of the motion. He later described the action as “somber,” but said it was “a necessary step” toward resolution of differences the state convention has with NAMB.
Alaska state convention action: Can the CP survive cafeteria style? By your humble hacker and plodder blogger. Pushback from some commenters. Example:
Given what I keep reading about NAMB and perceived heavy-handedness there (this isn’t a one-off story), things like this may continue to occur. Consequently, it makes me wonder if this suggests something isn’t working properly at NAMB? If that’s the case, then shouldn’t we be asking more questions about how NAMB is being operated and why these stories seem to keep popping up? Gus Nelson, occasional erudite Voices commenter. I don’t think he is a pastor but is very well informed on SBC stuff. He can add bio if he wishes.
Commenter Robin Lee gave a link to the actual discussion in the Alaska convention meeting. It’s helpful to watch and I reviewed it from the start of discussion on this issue (2:55:13) to the end of it.
A few things to add, and to know, about this important situation:
NAMB has a lot of critics. Those who spoke at the Alaska Baptist Resource Network (name of the state convention, ARBN) meeting were fairly unstinting in criticism of NAMB. The issue is not NAMB supporting work in Alaska but in how they are doing it. NAMB thinks it is more effective to put their millions in Alaska directly, rather than subject funding to ARBN controls, caveats, and provisos. Other non-South state conventions have complained loudly about NAMB.
NAMB was given permission by the SBC in annual session to control their budget, i.e., to set their goals and support them accordingly. If state conventions prefer the old system of NAMB paying for state staff, associational missionaries, etc., in a “historic partnership” or “traditional cooperative” manner, then who has the final say? If it’s CP money, or Annie Armstrong money, then clearly NAMB is given the final say, by the SBC.
NAMB has put $8.3 million into Alaska since 2010. NAMB spends more per person in Alaska than in any other state. It’s not detailed where the money went but these historic cooperative agreements between states and NAMB meant NAMB funded a lot of staff positions. The ARBC is welcome to correct me if this is wrong. I would be delighted to see NAMB or ARBN detail funding. These things have never been made fully public, since they involve various personnel. One might speculate that the pushback against NAMB’s current funding policy in Alaska has more to do with personnel than results.
The ARBN reported a total of 81 churches in 2010 and 88 churches in 2018. That’s a net increase of eight churches in nine years, and with over $8 million in NAMB funding, plus whatever the ARBN spent of it’s share of CP money and state offerings.
If NAMB has had control over spending in Alaska for the past decade, likely around $10 million, and reported to Southern Baptists that they have increased churches by single digits at a prorated cost of around $1 million per church, then questions would be asked and answers demanded. No need to explain to me the unique situation in Alaska or how the work is difficult there. I would assume all that. Still, where are the millions of dollars, (forgive me) cold cash, going?
The current CEO in Alaska, Randy Covington supported the action. The former CEO, Michael Procter, made the motion that was passed. Both are highly competent and experienced Southern Baptists who have long served in positions funded by The Cooperative Program. I would ask them, why cutting the heart out of the Cooperative Program is the solution to your problems with NAMB?
I’d expect the answer would be that NAMB is not being cooperative. If being cooperative means repeating the traditional funding schemes and support, and the results shown by such, then I’d hope NAMB would be recalcitrant.
But the underlying issue is the integrity of the Cooperative Program. I would have expected leadership in Alaska to have found a way to work this out without destroying the CP. If we accept a cafeteria approach the CP is doomed. Some seminaries have strident critics. The ERLC is a perpetual target for a sub-group of SBCers. Shall we have a system where any state convention can negatively designate, cafeteria style, SBC entities? Would we have a checkerboard of state funding schemes where this or that seminary or the ERLC was defunded at the state level? We agreed, together, almost a century ago to create our funding mechanism, the Cooperative Program. It can be changed at any time by the SBC in annual session.
Any state convention can forego the CP and collect funds from their churches in some other manner, and spend it accordingly. Or, they can keep larger percentages of the CP.
The SBC cannot impact a state convention budget through the CP because they don’t like how a given state convention is spending them. The principle of cooperation means this works both ways. States don’t have to collect or promote the CP but they can’t pick and choose which SBC entities receive them.
The Cooperative Program is an agreement between the SBC and state conventions and is a very sweet deal for the states which keep on average around 60% of CP receipts. Alaska keeps 80% of a CP dollar (latest figure I found). That’s their decision. The Executive Committee has no say in that. It’s not their business. The ARBN could have increased their percentage to send a message about NAMB but instead chose to undermine the entire CP. Not a good choice in my view.
_________________
This is a place where dissenting views can be aired. I’m pretty sure some of the Voices team would disagree with me on some parts of this. Have at it.
As an aside, while listening to the meeting, a speaker mentioned the ARBN’s representation on various SBC boards. If I recall correctly, the ARBN has a trustee at NAMB and IMB. NAMB doesn’t list a trustee from Alaska but has one at IMB. That means that Alaska has one trustee per 88 or so churches. My state, Georgia, has about one per 600, but who’s complaining about over or under representation?
Randy Covington is likely in a tight spot. He called the action “somber.” I’m rather somber about it myself. I understand that the ARBN didn’t actually take any action other than to say they would act to undermine the CP fifteen months down the road, in their 2021-2022 budget. One expects that they will work it out with NAMB but, still, this isn’t a good look for the CP or the ABRN.
So, get you grizzly gun out and fire away. I welcome anyone telling me if I’ve had a heat stroke here in Georgia and are all mixed up or telling me something I need to know. The relevant facts are public.
Other state conventions have complained recently about NAMB. None of them have acted to undermine the CP, though.
Yes, I know that the BGCT tried this. Now they have two conventions.
Photo from the ARBN website. Denali, I believe. I think I’ve stood on the spot from where that pic was taken.
Thank you for the link to the video of the motion and discussion. The news report did not frame it as a rural vs urban divide but the discussion did so. So should the SBC & NAMB focus on the greatest pockets of lost people or the smaller ones? I say both but the budget to do so is not limitless. However with so many howling at NAMB across the nation it seems that they might be working in a way that is not conducive to goodwill. How many loans have been doled out to well connected pastors/churches? NAMB seems… Read more »
Thank you William for your insight and information. I concur that there should be more transparency from our entities. The millions that NAMB invested in the ABRN over the past 10 years are of no bearing with the new cooperative agreements that have been put forth to the non south conventions. It appears that things are changed with the new agreements. The ABRN cannot, regardless of their vote, cut out NAMB from their CP dollars. The EC distributes all CP funds according to the set split. In fact, their vote is more symbolic than substantive. A substantive way would be… Read more »
I will not condone what ABRN did, but I will say NAMB has been heavy handed in rolling out change since GCR. It is not a “cooperative” agreement when one party can eliminate 75% of the personnel. Were they unnecessary positions? No one knows. NAMB simply said that position doesn’t exist anymore. How is that cooperative? As you said, cooperation goes both ways. I was a part of one of those smaller conventions for many years. In fairness, we probably relied too much on NAMB money to do some of the work of the convention. On the other hand, NAMB… Read more »
If this action by Alaskan Baptists was meant to call attention to their concerns, they have succeeded. If the Alaska Convention was alone in objecting, their concerns might be discounted; however, other state conventions are making the same complaints. Surely, Kevin Ezell and his trustee officers should meet with the state convention executives and discuss this. I have not read Ronny Floyd’s job description; but if peacemaking among Southern Baptist entities is not part of it, I move we include it.
As an executive board member of a new work state convention, I would see this from a different position.
NAMB decided to change their funding arrangements with states and states are reacting.
I think , if I were in Alaska, I would have opposed the action. But this is a REACTION to NAMB independence.
Yes
I wonder if my friends Mark Terry, former imb and missions prof, and Dave Miller would disagree that this action is manifestly anti-CP?
I don’t argue that it was a reaction to namb but just about the worst possible one,
Having recently returned to New Mexico, I know from my previous experience in the state at the time that the new NAMB implemented (in a much quicker time frame than promised) the GCR recommendations, that the relationship between the BCNM was then (and continues to be) strained, to say the least. It does not surprise me that Alaska did what it did. Although State Conventions have “partnership” agreements with the new NAMB, that entity is led by a person. You don’t negotiate partnership agreements with an inanimate object. You negotiate, hopefully in good faith, with a person or persons who… Read more »
Yes, William, I agree with you. I believe the action by the Alaska convention was a mistake and a detriment to SBC cooperation. Here is another question: Could our SBC entities find a way to resolve problems without involving the press and media? We seem to be trying these disputes in the court of public opinion.
I think that would be better, Mark. Evidently, seven states believe public pressure on namb will he beneficial to them.
The association that my home church belongs to (not in Alaska but in a non-southern state convention) shared a DOM with another association, 21 small churches between them, whose entire salary was funded by NAMB, along with the student ministry director they got at their local community college whom they also shared with another association. He worked four different campuses. All of that disappeared when NAMB changed its funding arrangement. The DOM was pretty active in pushing and supporting church plants and there have been no new ones since he left. The student ministry groups on the campus are gone.… Read more »
One might wonder why 21 churches should have a fully funded, namb paid AM. Are local churches incapable of student ministry without a paid staff person? There are choices among good and better alternatives for mission dollars. Those dollars went where they were though to be better utilized. The idea that an association should employ an AM doesn’t have a long history in the SBC.
But, thanks for the input and perspective.
That is a fairly cool (I would say cold but I desire to be irenic) response. Gone are the days where the entities of the SBC particularly the NAMB are partners with the local churches and their associations. What is to say that those churches and their association cannot make the same choice that the NAMB did – seeing a need, pooling their resources and supporting their DOM and Student Ministry Director, keeping back their mission funding from the NAMB? Or better yet the whole funding mechanism of the convention. Seems to me a fair and reasonable decision, because as… Read more »
Totally agree. No one can criticize a church for their mission spending priorities. States have such a sweet deal with the CP, they keep most of the money, that they are unlikely to think damaging it is in their self interest.
The DOM who served in that association for 25 years was the father of one of my best friends in school. If it were not for his Dad’s commitment and work, there would not now be 21 churches there. It’s not the south. It’s an area where the 21 churches are spread out more than 120 miles from one side of the association to the other, only two have a full time pastor, only the one next to a military base is multi-staff and the DOM was the primary gatherer of the resources and did all the leg work for… Read more »
Sounds like great work. It makes sense to put most of our evangelism and church planting dollars in places where there are the most people. That said, NAMB funds at a greater rate per person than any other state. They are being vilified not thanked for doing so.
I believe there is a push in almost everything to urbanize. I think this is directly related to how rural community’s have unlimited access to worldwide happening at the end of there finger tips. In our new age I believe most people in our SBC leadership and particularly Namb have assumed that everyone is now connected to that which is urban and this is somewhat true. But it’s a generational problem more than anything. In many places that are rural young people have embraced very urban lifestyles while older people who maintain leadership are in a different place but trying… Read more »
You are on to something here. I now have a different perspective than in the past when I was a pastor in an urban area of 300,000. I am now in an extremely rural area that very much reflects the past while the promotional materials put out by the SBC reflect a very futuristic, modernistic world. The images are projecting to our people an SBC they no longer relate to or identify with. On the other hand, if the SBC put out promotional materials that reflected the rural world we live in, people in urban areas would wonder what ancient… Read more »
Just making sure I understand. If AK is currently keeping 80% of CP and sending 20%, then keeping the 22.79% of that 20% that is NAMB’s allocation is an add’l 4.5% of CP dollars staying in-state. William, are you saying it would have been better for them to just say, “We’re keeping 84.5%, and it’s because of NAMB”? This seems like word games. I used to be on the exec committee in a “new work state.” The frustration with NAMB was great, but the exec director did his best to portray NAMB in a positive light. I tried to voice… Read more »
Yes, that would have been a better reaction because it doesn’t undermine the principle of the CP. Namb has to prove itself more competent over time. Maybe ARBC could account for the roughly $10 million spent by namb in the state since 2010. Net increase of eight churches to show for that. Where was the money put? Who was in charge of spending it? Did it build state hq and fill it with centralized staff? Is the traditional way of setting up a state structure, complete with HQ and staff, the best way to reach an area for Christ? ARBC… Read more »
I agree with you, both that Alaska should be accountable for the $10M, and that we rarely have honest discussions. I have generally been a NAMB supporter, despite losing a DOM in 2013 when the dollars started shifting. On some of your questions, I can’t speak for AK, but in the comparable state I was in, overhead on already modest HQ facilities had been cut considerably, already modest state exec pay had been cut further, staff was maybe 10, and things were still bleak. That was 2 years ago. I did notice they were not among the 6 states that… Read more »
If the issue is about money…then all SBC (NAMB in this instance) should post their salaries.
Alot of the issue for us commoners is the $ that is being paid to figure heads that are out of touch with those in the pews. As a pastor, I am not being a good steward if I encourage the church to give to a beauacracy versus actually funding mission work.
I too fear what this act will do to the CP and the positive impact is has, however, this is an issue that needs addressing.
IMO, Alaska can do anything they want with the money, there is nothing anyone outside can do or even have a say in (other than to make observations and complaints about it). This is autonomy. In my thinking it is their business, not mine or anyone else outside Alaska. The SBC bureaucracy will have to deal with the fact that ANY giving to them is fully voluntary and there is no way to “strong arm” people, churches or state conventions to give to them and it can stop at the will of the people, churches or state conventions. No one… Read more »
One thing for you to look at here. The participation in the CP is an agreement between the SBC EC and a state convention. If states collect money from the churches under the “Cooperative Program” they may keep whatever portion of it they wish but they cannot cut any SBC entity out of the portion sent to the EC. There are alternatives to doing this that would defund NAMB or ERLC or whatever. Local churches make their own CP decisions. It’s wrong for the state convention to come in behind them and change the deal. ARBN knows this and had… Read more »
It is a touchy situation. Much of SB life is agreements of voluntary cooperation and should be honored on both parts. It seems that Alaska and others have felt they have been shut out of the conversation and cooperation and are making moves to be heard. It may be wrong moves but they are making them none the less. Once again we have run into an issue that maybe could have been avoided with transparency and better two way communication which seems lacking the last several years from the SB bureaucracy. The “cooperation” seems many times to be “send us… Read more »
In the 2021 ABRN budget namb is funding a good portion of several centralized Staff and administration positions. $250k I think, not chump change. That’s not a shut out. Doubtless there is a policy disagreement. Maybe namb has said they will not fund these for the 2022 budget. ABRN hasn’t said that. Is the problem lack of communication or just not the content in the communication that one side wants? There are code words in all this, “historic partnership”, “traditional practice” etc. Generally means one side isn’t getting what they want.
Honest, civil discussion is hard to achieve in the ol’ SBC but I appreciate how it may be done here. A few points in summary: Comments have been made by two non-south state convention people whom I respect, Dave Miller (Iowa) and Howell Scott (New Mexico). They are acutely aware of NAMB’s change in funding policy that shifts dollars to population centers and away from rural and more sparsely populated areas. I respect them and all who would argue against this policy change. It makes sense to me and I support it. The ARBN is arguing some vague and undefined… Read more »
In olden days HMB/NAMB sent money to the non-Southern state conventions (like Alaska), and those conventions had lots of freedom to decide how the money was spent. However, when the SBC approved the Great Commission Resurgence, it empowered NAMB to decide how and where the money would be spent. The non-Southern state convention leaders have complained regularly since then. In essence, the SBC voted that NAMB knows better than the state conventions. I’m not saying that is true, nor am I saying that the messengers to the SBC understood the implications of their votes. Nevertheless, the executives and trustees of… Read more »
Suppose the GCR final report could be amended after all these years. Not sure namb could be forced Into a block grant system. It would be a repudiation of all they are doing. The SBC might be forced into an ugly discussion.
I totally agree. Again, having been in leadership in a non-south convention, what was communicated through funding decisions by NAMB was that our convention staff was incompetetent to do church planting correctly. Therefore, NAMB brought all church-planting funding under their direct umbrella. Historically, money was funneled back through the convention for the purpose of church planting. The state exec I was working with when the GCR was passed warned us that the messengers did not fully comprehend what the GCR would entail for non-south conventions. I, initially, thought the GCR was a great thing, but the way it was implemented… Read more »
On your last two sentences, questions: depends. Show southern baptists what you’ve done.
I know from having been involved in a church’s ministry, going to state convention meetings as a messenger and having several friends who worked for our “outside the South” state convention that the NAMB money they got was a big boost and helped them provide salaries for directors of missions and other state staff who, in turn, provided a lot of support for the kind of mission work NAMB wants to do, like church planting. Looking at the size and scope of Alaska’s state convention and its budget, the NAMB funding would have been the lion’s share of what they… Read more »
Question for exploration and reflection: Why does it seem to be accepted that the best way to reach geographical area is by establishing a centralized state convention HQ and staffing it with a CEO, support staff and various ‘specialists’?
Is it because we are following a tradition of this? Or because it results in more believers and churches?
Good question, I think tradition.
I think that’s an excellent question. My observations are purely anecdotal, but my home church would not now exist had it not been for initiatives taken by what was called “new church development” in the state convention back in 1954 which was a partnership between them and what was then the HMB. Prior to the formation of the state convention, there were only a couple dozen SBC churches in the state, most of them splits off American Baptist churches over “liberal” stances on communion and ecumenism. After the state convention was organized and partnered with NAMB, new churches were started… Read more »
I love the Cooperative Program. Years ago during the conservative resurgence I saw many churches cutting CP giving in favor of doing their own thing in missions. Ours did “our own thing”, but we continued to give to the CP. Our convention redefined Great Commission giving. We did away with the Stewardship Commission, and many of our leaders acted as if there were no CP. NAMB, in my opinion has acted with a heavy hand, as far back as Bob Reccord. Under Kevin Ezell it has gotten worse, and people have lost confidence. I have lost confidence. We have watched… Read more »