Almost lost amid the more gaudy news out of Dallas this week is something that is assuredly more important to the SBC’s future: news on the Cooperative Program.
Average percentage of undesignated receipts given to CP: 4.86% down from 5.16%.
Although the decline is just a fraction, 3/10 of one percent, it’s a pretty steep one year drop, about 6%. Think what it would mean if we had five consecutive years of the same. We would be looking at a CP that is down to 3.5% of church receipts. Weeping and gnashing of teeth everywhere.
Churches have been giving on average around five percent (5.16%) of their undesignated offering plate dollars. Now we’re under five percent.
The combination of an increase of total undesignated gifts to churches, $9.52 billion, up about $300 million, and a decline in CP giving of about $14 million caused the percentage reduction.
As Augie Boto pointed out in his Executive Committee report, the national share of CP dollars actually increased by about $1.5 million while the state convention share dropped by $14 million. The states continued to cut the proportion of CP revenues that they keep in-state for their various ministries.
The state/national CP “split” is now 58.51 for states and 41.49 for national SBC.
This is pretty serious business. Look for state conventions to speak to the matter. They had $14 million less to work with last year (the reporting period ended with the 2016-2017 fiscal year, September 30th).
More later on this.
And it is likely to get worse. There are any number of people who will not be willing to fund # metoo and social justice. Some may just keep their funds at the associational level.
Maybe. Problem is that most churches aren’t seeIng anything happening at the associational level that excites them.
I think we’ll see a revival of associations and state/regional conventions — that’s where the reparative part of repentance has to happen. How the tides shift!
It will be interesting to see if foreign missions remains as popular, or whether the focus on it comes to be seen as theological colonialism. I can see an argument for decreasing national funding and increasing local funding.
What I’m seeing is that the millennials are not excited about sending a check for a cause as much as they are putting their hands on something in their community. I think the CP giving is an indicator of something, but I don’t think it tells close to the whole story. Churches are partnering together to plant churches or doing so themselves, sending out their own missionaries or giving support, etc. I don’t think we will see a revival of associations or state conventions unless they remove as much of the administrative costs as possible and move to more of a volunteer model. We did that in an association I was in until recently and saw more work done with almost nobody on the payroll than we ever did with a full staff. It’s about stewardship and being able to put your hands on something. Before we had instant access to information, we had more of a need for state conventions and associations. Now we can get an e-mail blast telling us what decision NAMB made or the SBC EC made and aren’t going to the associational offices to check out “study courses” anymore. Some churches are seeing many of those administrative costs as bad stewardship.
I agree about “putting their hands on something in their community.”
I think we’re likely to see more new, local ministries, though, with shared admin costs at the association level. Christian schools, sex trafficking prevention efforts, reading/english, ministry to immigrants, job training, foster care, and so on. There will be increased pressure for suburban churches to pool money for city-wide efforts in areas of need.
I wouldn’t disagree with that. Here where I live, small town East Texas, the police department is calling on churches to get involved in some areas, and the family court judge is trying to get the churches involved in the fostering system and related issues. I think that’s going to be something of what we see going forward. JD Greear shared as much during SBC as far as what Summit does. I think we will see an increase in “networks” of churches and less of association and state convention involvement by the local churches. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, but my experience has been that the local churches I’ve served don’t really get into much of what the association or state convention is doing. It was not from me not talking about it or being involved, either. I was the volunteer DOM in my last association.
I think we are seeing the results of Great Commission Giving and churches doing their own missions.
No church ever gave a dime to GCG. It isn’t a givIng option. Blaming declining CP percentages on GCG is merely a cheap and easy way to avoid addressing the real reasons churches are making mission giving choices that mean less proportion to the CP.
What the SBC expects to fund vis CP is unsustainable. That is why ‘Simple SBC’ is needed. Eliminate CP funding for the ERLC, NAMB and 2-4 seminaries. The SBC does not need to be doing all it is trying to do. Let the states do their work and LIMIT the SBC to international missions. If we are wise enough to do this the SBC will have a sustainable international missions program until Jesus comes. BUT if we keep the status quo and keep begging for more CP from churches while beating up State Conventions for keeping too much MANY frustrated pastors will lead their churches to give even less to CP and give more to Parachurch groups who they now must depend on for resources because State Conventions and NAMB have so little to support their work. Big gov’t and big national convention bureaucracy are equally undesirable.
How would you suggest the SBC engage states where there is very little SBC presence? Thus, there would not be a strong state convention nor finances for church planting, discipleship, evangelism, and if NAMB is gone, no cooperative body to help work in these under-reached (comparatively) areas. Your plan seems to leave out those states that do not have a strong SBC presence already. This area does need more thought in terms of strategy and finances from the local church level through all levels of associations and conventions.
The same way it has throughout history. As the Gospel spreads and churches grow and the Kingdom grows; more churches are assembled along the way.
It is possible to plant churches in areas that do not have: state conventions, finances for planting, etc. It may be difficult, but it is not impossible. Church planting does not require a multi-million dollar coordinating arm.
Sure, I suppose. Could not the same thing be said for international missions and state conventions. Local churches keep all the money? I am not arguing that inefficiencies do not exist and should be addressed, but to make sure any action taken actually helps. I have often questioned NAMB’s purpose (not that it should not exist, but what should it be doing). Moving their focus from those areas where we already have church’s that can be taking up the church planting needs to those areas in N. America where there are no or few SBC churches or focusing on urban areas where we have historically struggled, seems to be a good strategy to attempt and see if it works.
I think the international aspect of missions is much easier to justify. The problem with NAMB is the thousands of churches across the country that do exist where NAMB is planting. I remember being in North Carolina when the shift was announced. Greensboro was one of our focus cities; it has a around 1,000 SBC churches and was less than an hour from 1,000’s more. Did we need a planting focus there, I doubt it.
Part of the problem is we have a good problem; we seek to save that which is lost. The dollars are being spent in ways contrary to how the CP was designed and that isn’t changing. It is incumbent upon us to really evaluate how we work moving forward. Kick legacy out the door and make real evaluations. That is hard b/c if you float the idea of NAMB being shuttered, then 100’s of people dismiss you our of hand and insult you. Our biggest hindrance is our holy-bovines.
Agreed, but I thought NAMB has been shifting their focus from areas where there are numerous SBC churches to areas of the country where there are no or few churches. I know they have gotten push back from people wanting to start churches in the SE, and NAMB would not provide finances since they are focused on unreached areas.
I believe NAMB has done so; I’m just not sure with the plethora of churches in this country if the ministry of church planting needs to be centralized.
I live and pastor about an hour west of a major SEND city, Chicago. If you listen to my state convention I minister in an area of church void; but my city has more churches than people can imagine. Are most of them mainline or wonky, probably are. The problem comes in though, when we add more churches to an area like mine, we muddy the water and every church becomes just another church.
NAMB cannot know that. Most of the state convention guys can’t know that, they live hours to the south of here. So again, while the motivation is good, the execution is poor.
I believe mature State Conventions can, should and will partner with younger State conventions if NAMB is gone. State conventions have done so in the past. NAMB picking New Convention winners and losers is not the best way to encourage New Conve tion areas.
I don’t want to start trouble, but has spending on things like AV equipment (smoke machines, etc.) and marketing consultants (Auxano) diminished CP giving? Just asking …
Heck, Ray, start some trouble. No question churches feel the need to spend more locally .
For sure, the SBC is in a long, slow decline. We’ve tried reorganizing the SBC, and we’re tried the Great Commission Resurgence. Neither of those arrested the decline. What shall we try next?
I’ve got an idea, let’s faithfully seek to make disciples and let God worry about our numbers. It’s so crazy that it just might work.
Michael,
Maybe that is the problem. We have 2/3 of our membership not visible on Sundays [and of course some dont go every week] and many places have emphasized people getting in [getting saved] but maybe not so much on discipling converts. People who dont attend church rarely give money. But we aren’t called to care about numbers but to preach the Gospel and to disciple believers.
I agree. For too long the SBC has focused on baptisms. I get why, they are easy to measure and the only “concrete” fruit of work. However, I think the focus upon baptisms has diminished our vital calling to actually disciple these people and train them in righteousness.
…but, one of the first indicators of a healthy disciple is that they are baptized. Baptism is really the first stage gate in the disciple’s journey.
Don’t disagree, but way too many churches only focus on that 1st step and design their entire ministry around it; thereby forsaking the rest of the journey. Too much focus on step one makes us unable to complete the walk, hence the millions of baptized “members” who never darken the door of the church and never truly become disciples.
There are several factors leading to a decline in the CP% given by individual churches and trying to go against them is challenging. From what I have seen the overall increased prosperity of the South, oddly enough is probably the most significant factor – let me explain:
1. In 1925, when the CP was formed, the average Southern Baptist lived in a rural area, probably without paved roads. They were picking cotton by hand and a trip to the next county was a big trip. Therefore, the prospect of actively going on a mission trip abroad was not at all likely, so there was more of a passive approach and a willingness to give to the CP. Contrast that to today, where we see a more educated and affluent population who have passports and are more likely to give to a specific mission effort where their church has traveled and has a personal relationship with the missionaries at that location.
2. In 1925, there was a greater identity with the state conventions as the membership in SBC churches was of people who had lived in that state for generations. I remember my grandfather had a strong identity with the Mississippi Baptist Convention. With a more mobile society today, there are far fewer proud “Tennessee Baptists” who are enthusiastic supporters of the state convention.
3. The CR itself was led by pastors whose churches were not strong financial supporters of the CP because of theological differences with the seminaries. After the CR was completed in the early 1990’s, the pastors who had been leaders of the CR didn’t increase their % giving.
4. Since 1925, there has been a huge increase in the # of college graduates sitting in SBC churches and these grads had involvement with Crusade and other parachurch ministries and therefore are more willing to support parachurch missions – even at the expense of Lottie Moon. In fact many churches have an overall missions offering which supports other missions besides the IMB. Even the former President of the IMB came from a church which supported missionaries of parachurch organizations.
Given these realities, it is less likely that there is going to be return to the good old days of CP giving. The question is what is essential? With declining membership in churches, it is hard to see keeping a big payroll at a state convention office and there is also the question of 6 seminaries when you consider all of the other seminaries – like Beeson and Dallas, whose graduates are serving in SBC churches. Ultimately, the seminaries will likely become more self supporting and state conventions will have less to give to Baptist colleges in their states (e.g. the Alabama Baptist Convention no longer contributes to Samford). If these adjustments are made, hopefully, the IMB will be able to maintain the same level of support. However, we’re almost 100 years from 1925 and adjustments have to be made.
Agreed David. Those are facts. IMO, CP, particularly on the state level, is going to have to undergo some major adjustments ( i.e. downsizing). CP is probably not going to dramatically increase back to the “good old days.” I suspect that is what has some state people so worried, and perhaps rightfully so. I still contend much of this last ordeal we were subjected to by the unprecedented campaigning to elect KH had as much to do with financial issues as soteriology. However, I do not see the CP issues as Cals vs. Trads. Many, if not most, trad. churches are down in their CP giving also. As Walter Cronkite used to say (and that dates me, so you’ll know. I’m one of the older guys who voted for J.D.), “That’s the way it is.” And likely not going back.
Cals and Trads have both emphasized preaching as the primary task of the church, and now we’ve covered the land with preaching. Even Trads hardly know what to do with deacons anymore.
I think *elders* are called to a special focus on preaching and orthodoxy. We’re getting some early rumblings on a revival of orthopraxy in the local church, which would be fine by me as long as it doesn’t distract the ministers from their special focus.
The only thing that will bring back state and local giving is a vision for doing after hearing.
I don’t disagree that church folks like to see local use of their mission dollars but this isn’t like a restaurant using local food sources. And most of the world’s billions of souls are completely out of reach if a church goes it on their own. They will not have the means nor the expertise. IMB, supported about 1/3 out of CP dollars, can do these things. It takes some pastoral leadership to educate the church and offer a broader, more Christ-pleasing vision.
William, this is assuming an either/or proposition (A church gives to the IMB through the CP or it can’t reach the world’s billions). A church can give direct support to a person working with Campus Crusade for Christ or many other sending organizations – sure there is some % of overhead in these organizations as there has to be. However, this is a lot different from giving to the CP where typically 50% stays in state and then when the other 50% makes it to the Executive Committee, some portion of it goes to seminaries, the NAMB, the ERLC and then a portion to IMB. The challenge becomes in convincing the churches that the 50% which goes to the state convention is money well spent as well as the monies that are spent on the seminaries, NAMB and ERLC and any other institution which the CP supports.
The state conventions will need to do a better job convincing churches of the effectiveness of their ministries or cut back on the % they keep in state. The point of my earlier post is that in 1925, people in SBC churches had a lot stronger Baptist identity and a lot of that was rooted in their connections to the local association as well as their state conventions – they looked forward to reading the state convention newspaper. How many folks are there like that today? My ancestors were those people who lived a hand to mouth existence picking cotton and never would have considered traveling abroad to do a mission trip, yet were enthusiastic supporters of Lottie Moon and all SBC causes. Today, there is a greater desire to be more proactive and see tangible results of both giving and actions. Mission trips have caused this and a consequence has been less willingness to give to efforts where there is less personal involvement.
Very good perspective.
William, you have addressed the issue of “local appropriation” of mission funds in several responses, but in one response you mentioned that “no church has practiced Great Commission Giving.” I am not exactly sure what you mean by that. GCG is more an identification of how money is spent than an organization to which the money is given. I get that if that is what you mean. But, if you take the Baptist Press report of the convention in its summary of the election of the new president, you see clearly how GCG is obscuring CoOp Program support. Dr. Greear church is praised for its mission efforts, and at the same time the article points out that his church gives only 2.4% to the CoOp program.
I believe this has been the case for a few presidents over the last few years. Could it be that CoOp Program gifts have been sliding, at least in part, because we really don’t champion the program as we did 40 years ago. Also, 40 years ago, the “megachurch” was not an idea that played as heavily into Convention life.
I don’t see how President Greear can be a champion for the CoOp Program if he practices the “Great Commission Giving” approach–that I don’t think was ever meant to be an “approach” in the first place.
For full disclosure, my church has be “earmarking (escrowing)” our mission gifts for a couple of years trying to sort out how to continue to support CoOp missions and at the same time try to impact a community of 128,000 where we are the only Southern Baptist Church in town.
Money is like time. One can spend it anyway one wishes–but can only spend it once. I’m caught now between my heritage of CoOp Program giving and the cold reality that we can do more in local missions if we practice the same giving pattern as Dr. Greear’s church. And, I am not knocking what his church does. From all accounts he’s a great guy with a great church.
I guess my point is: do Southern Baptists really, still see the value of the CoOp Program? Dr. Greear would be hard-pressed to be a “champion for the cause” at 2.4%.
Something is taking place. Changes are happening. Maybe the CoOp giving is simply reflecting those changes.
Your last sentence is the best. GCG isn’t a giving plan, merely a compilation. The only use I see for the metric is to demonstrate a church’s commitment to SBC in their giving choices. No, I don’t think CP is down because we haven’t had the right kind of cheerleaders.
No doubt the discussion will continue.