William remains the SBC Plodder, when he is not out fishing.
SBC Life has some interesting Cooperative Program statistics in the current issue. Under a short piece entitled, “Interesting (and Important) Facts about the CP?” one finds this:
2,025 churches reported giving a combined amount that equals 50 percent of all Cooperative Program gifts given through the state Baptist conventions — more than 240 million dollars ($240,704,503).*Among churches that gave this amount are:
- 89—churches with more than 2,000 in worship attendance
- 56—churches with 1,501 to 2,000 in worship attendance
- 163—churches with 1,001 to 1,500 in worship attendance
- 158—churches with 751 to 1,000 in worship attendance
- 348—churches with 501 to 750 in worship attendance
- 886—churches with 251 to 500 in worship attendance
- 277—churches with 126 to 250 in worship attendance
- 19—churches with 125 or under in worship attendance
- 29—churches did not report their attendance
I doubt you would have guessed that about 2,000 of the SBC’s 46,000 churches are responsible for half of all the Cooperative Program giving.
And if you look at the listing of the sizes of these churches given above, you may be persuaded away from the old saw that all those average and small SBC churches that give high percentages are the backbone of the CP. Their giving is important and commendable but the backbone seems to be the larger, mid-mega, and megachurches if we’re talking about the dollars that pay all the SBC bills.
These 2,025 churches gave an average of 8.1% of their undesignated receipts through the Cooperative Program. That percentage is significantly above the average, which hovers between five and six percent.
Want some good news about Cooperative Program giving?
For the first time since fiscal 1999-2000, the percentage forwarded by the churches through the Cooperative Program did not decline.
- In 2011, the average percentage giving from all churches was 5.407 percent.
- In 2012, the average percentage giving from all churches rose slightly to 5.414 percent.
Frank Page should declare an SBC party day over the .007 increase in average percentage. It is a miniscule increase but it is an increase. Perhaps the Cooperative Program has reached its percentage floor.
With the health care reform fully taking effect, I think we’ll dip significantly next year. I hope I’m wrong.
Or, you could read this and come away with the stat that over half of these 2,025 churches have less than 501 people on average. Hardly mega-churches. Over 10% of the 2,025 churches are less than 251 people. It is so easy to allow statistics to say what you want. I would like to know how much the 814 churches with 501+ members gave and what that percentage looks like. That would be a little more accurate if we want to focus on what “mega-churches” give. Furthermore, I believe the SBC defines mega-churches as 1000 or more members. So, of the 308 with 1000 members or more, what did they give and what pct. did they give of undesignated receipts.
You can’t compare apples with oranges. So, I’m not so sure we do know how the breakdown really compares. I don’t think you make an argument for saying that the non mega-churches aren’t the backbone of the denomination.
I think his point (other than just presenting facts) is that a small percentage of churches are paying the way for the CP. Need to get other churches on board, somehow.
A megachurch is 2000+ and there are around 175 of these in the SBC. There are about 600 with 1000+. You will note that the vast number of the churches in this statistical tabulation are 250+. While I wish I had the database to manipulate it myself, it is unarguable that a small percentage of churches, mostly larger ones, make up half of the CP giving.
I didn’t claim that the “non-megachurches aren’t the backbone of the denomination”, so you are arguing with something I did not say.
Since less than 200 of the 46,000 SBC churches are megas, non-megas clearly are the backbone, unless you are talking about appointments to important positions and boards. On that the megachurches are the backbone. The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force, for example, was composed of mostly mega people with a few lessers tossed in for alleged balance…but I digress.
My point William was that this “so-called” statistical picture doesn’t constitute a viewpoint that the SBC’s giving is dominated by extremely large churches. Moreover, as I stated, with over half of the sample having less than 501 members, we don’t know how much of a “backbone” the remainder of those large churches are.
Furthermore, the statistics also don’t show the budgets of these churches comparative to their membership, so regardless of the amount, the smaller churches could still be giving far more per family on average than the mega-churches. Which equates to more sacrifice, which is far more of a “backbone” than dollars.
Nate, the figures SBC Life used show that a tiny percentage of all SBC churches give far beyond their number in CP dollars and that almost all of these churches are much larger than the average sized SBC church. Which category of SBC churches should be called the “backbone” of the CP is entirely subjective but it is often said that average and smaller churches are the backbone. This is not a conclusion based on data if we are talking about the dollars contributed.
I was careful to say that the contributions of smaller churches are important and commendable.
I think the notable part of this is how many churches of less than 500 in attendance are significantly involved in paying the CP bills! Over half of these churches!
Dave, a church of 250 in attendance is far above the SBC average.
Isn’t the point of CP that every church, no matter how small their ability to participate, makes a difference?
Of course, and that is borne out by the fact the other half of the CP is subscribed by the other churches.
It would be interesting to compare these numbers to the distribution of churches in each numerical category – 43.75% (886 / 2025) of the high-giving churches are in the 251-500 in worship attendance category…does this correspond to the percentage of churches overall in that group?
Percentage distribution might be the only “fair” way to judge whether this is a megachurch-biased pattern or if this is just an expected distribution of churches.
Couldn’t find the overall data on sbc.net – does anyone have access to ACP who can relay it?
These numbers represent a normal distribution. By comparison, consider the United States income tax. According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 5% pay 58.66% of the tax bill. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
We must remember that our goal is not to give equal amounts, but to sacrifice equally. On that score, some churches at the top are truthfully at the bottom.
I’m with Andrew above, though I doubt we’ll see that number. What % of CP giving comes from each of those attendance bands?
This is a cherry-picked scenario to make a point, rather than useful data. You could recombine and find that 50% of CP giving comes from 20% of churches by dropping the 89 megas off the list and adding smaller churches that equal their giving.
Let’s get a fuller picture before we keep crushing the enthusiasm for CP giving in small churches.
I think the interesting part of this set of statistics is the answer to the question “how did they establish the cutoff?” Why is that interesting? Because it includes churches of all reported sizes and of no size at all. So what they did not do was line up all of the largest churches until they got to 50%. That wasn’t the cutoff.
What seems to have been done instead is that the reported percentage of cooperative program passthrough was increased until the 50% mark was reached and then aggregate statistics on the churches giving at or above that percentage were calculated.
Playing that thought experiment forward, we could imagine expanding from 8.1% and up down to, say, 6% and up. It wouldn’t be surprising to see an expansion from 50%/4.3% to, say, 70%/15% or even the famous 80%/20% suggested by the somewhat poorly understood, popular notion of the “Pareto principle”.
The basic concept of the Pareto principle is that distribution of wealth is inherently inconsistent but that aggregated together it follows some consistent patterns. Business consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle based on an observation by Vilfredo Pareto–himself an Italian civil engineer and economist–that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. The article I linked also has a chart from 1989 that showed that the richest quintile in that year took down 82.7% of global GDP.
The underlying math that was developed to explain Pareto’s observation is a statistical predictive curve called a power law probability distribution (search “Pareto distribution” for details that will make your eyes bleed unless you’re a somewhat enthusiastic amateur mathematician). That same set of concepts also supports Rick’s comment regarding the relatively non-voluntary income tax (as opposed to the entirely voluntary CP passthrough.) Now the income tax is designed to be intentionally progressive, but even when it is flattened–as in the Reagan reforms–the pattern remains remarkably similar but collections increase. It just primarily has to do with underlying human behavior expressing itself in a consistent way when data are aggregated.
But here’s kind of the interesting insight: if you were to think of CP rate as a form of self-tax, the reasons that churches impose a specific rate is the heart of the issue. Now we’ve heard anecdotal stories where a church will impose a high rate and then accept underpaying staff (I think Dale Pugh related one of those stories previously.) That sense of compulsion is anti-biblical and could be argued to be self-righteous (which means exactly as righteous as “filthy rags” according to the Bible.)
I actually believe the levering point from the Bible for determining the correct self-imposed PERSONAL and CONGREGATIONAL rate of giving is this passage and it MUST BE READ in its entirety to understand the power of Paul’s argumentation regarding giving for the purpose of MINISTRY TO THE SAINTS:
2 Corinthians 9 (HCSB…or as Doug so affectionally interpreted that: Hard-core Southern Baptist):
“Now concerning the ministry to the saints, it is unnecessary for me to write to you. 2 For I know your eagerness, and I brag about you to the Macedonians: “Achaia has been prepared since last year,” and your zeal has stirred up most of them. 3 But I sent the brothers so our boasting about you in the matter would not prove empty, and so you would be prepared just as I said. 4 For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we, not to mention you, would be embarrassed in that situation. 5 Therefore I considered it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance the generous gift you promised, so that it will be ready as a gift and not as an extortion.
6 Remember this: The person who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the person who sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each person should do as he has decided in his heart—not reluctantly or out of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make every grace overflow to you, so that in every way, always having everything you need, you may excel in every good work. 9 As it is written:
He scattered;
He gave to the poor;
His righteousness endures forever.
10 Now the One who provides seed for the sower and bread for food will provide and multiply your seed and increase the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way for all generosity, which produces thanksgiving to God through us. 12 For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing in many acts of thanksgiving to God. 13 They will glorify God for your obedience to the confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with others through the proof provided by this service. 14 And they will have deep affection for you in their prayers on your behalf because of the surpassing grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift.”
Now the last thing I feel particularly qualified to do is to interpret that passage for anyone else other than myself. But here’s my personal take aways:
1. It’s okay to train up believers to give. Paul clearly is preparing to do that with his opening comments in the passage.
2. It’s okay to point out specific needs. Paul specifically was preparing the Greek church in Corinth to give to the Macedonians.
3. It is not okay to use compulsion. You guys recognize the verses so I won’t belabor that observation.
4. It’s okay to use as motivation that God overflows us with grace SO THAT we may excel in EVERY good work.
5. It’s similarly ok to point out that there are spiritual benefits that extend beyond the immediate, concrete benefits of the gift.
6. And it’s ok to make the claim that God will bless both the gift, the giver, and the recipient and produce thanksgiving to himself through giving.
Now I’m not quite sure if that’s a free sermon outline or not, I’m not a preacher. But if we want more giving, perhaps this is the way we preach it?
I was in a church business meeting years ago when the church voted to increase its giving to the Cooperative Program. One of the dear old saints exclaimed “Good Lord, are we ever going to get that thing paid off?!”
As a young Christian, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry because I wasn’t sure about CP myself at that point. Which brings me to a question: “Do the 20s-30s populating SBC’s new church plants understand and support the CP or are they focused more on funding independent missional efforts?” Any statistics available in that regard?
This is both interesting and useful, Doug. The data were not explained completely but the top 2025 giving churches in dollars give half of the total amount. And why is this crushing the enthusiasm for small churches? If a small church cannot see the importance of the CP and give what they can out of what they have, and do so enthusiastically, then they need to check their motivations.
I have never known an SBC or state convention leader to disparage a church that gives a small amount or that gives a small percentage but I have known SBCers to disparage, and quite often and harshly, large churches that give considerable sums to the CP but with small percentages of their total budget.
It seems clear to me that the method was to take the largest dollar givers and see how many it took to get to the 50% point and then break them down by reported attendance. Some of the 2025 did not report attendance. To get to the 80% point it took another 6300 churches who averaged 7.6% of their undesignated gifts to the CP. The next 15% was reached by the next 22,000 churches.
…so you have 80% of CP gifts being given by 18% of the churches. There’s your 80/20.
So, I agree that’s the methodology. But there is very little chance that the smaller churches would have been grouped with the larger churches based on raw dollars given. Which is why I suspect this data was assembled by setting a CP percentage threshold.
Since I am completely ignorant of how the numbers were gathered, I feel fully qualified to jump right in here. But I do have what William says.
William shows the roughly 80/20 split that we have come to expect in most things human. Based on what he said, they did list the raw money and stopped when they got to 50% of the money and did the count which came up with 2025 churches.
I thought the relatively large number of churches in the list with 250-500 members was not surprising. These churches are large enough to have a significant budget, but not so large that they do their own mission program.
An interesting number would be the donation amount of the last church on this list (#2025 on the contributions stack).
Who’s got the money to give to the CP when you’ve gotta pay for a groundskeeper. Someone’s gotta cut the hedges in front of the witty sign to draw in over 50 folks every week.