Last year, the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions was a stupendous $165.8 million infusion into our flagship SBC mission board which had been struggling financially with serious and continuing deficits. Over 1,000 personnel, mostly overseas workers, took the early retirement offers and reductions in personnel costs put the board on a sustainable path. That Southern Baptists gave over $12 million more to the LMCO in 2015 than 2014 was an added boost and a great help in restoring reserves and providing stability going forward.
Alas, it looks like the 2016 offering will drop back down into the $155 million range, perhaps a little lower and render the big jump from 2014-2015 an historical anomaly, probably a delayed reaction to the downsizing.
When our Executive Committee gives it’s monthly report, it follows the same template of reporting the receipts, both designated and undesignated (Cooperative Program gifts), and compares them to the same period last year. The Baptist Press story dated April 4th, Nat’l CP 4.07 ahead of projection at mid year point, Note the following paragraph:
Designated giving of $115.081,792.04 for the same year-to-date period is 10.87 percent, or $14,041,006.13, below the $129,122,798.17 received at this point last year. This total includes only those gifts received and distributed by the EC and does not reflect designated gifts contributed directly to SBC entities. Designated contributions include the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions, the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions, Southern Baptist Global Hunger Relief and other special gifts.
If designated giving (which is mostly Lottie and Annie, and NAMB’s Annie Armstrong offering which is only just now coming in) is down by over $14 million, one can make the assumption that most of this is accounted for by reduced LMCO receipts.
Oddly, IMB doesn’t issue monthly financial reports and Southern Baptists will have to wait until June to know exactly how much the LMCO will be for 2016, IMB closing the books on it at the end of May this year. There’s no good reason our IMB needs to hold their cards on this until the end of their accounting year in May. Seems to me that if SBCers knew how the offering was being received through December, January, and later, we could give more if it looked like the offering was going to come up short. Perhaps the brain trust at IMB could reexamine their policies and be more open and accommodating here. I see no reason not to.
I may not like all the news and editorials that come out of the Louisiana state paper but the Baptist Message and Will Hall seem to be the only ones paying attention to this. Check their story from yesterday. It’s a bit of a negative rehash of IMB difficulties but if Southern Baptists can’t stand bad news we better ask for a total blackout of news. There are some difficult days coming, I think.
IMB budgeted on the basis of a $170.5 million LMCO. They are going to be severely short but should have the reserves to manage. More retrenchment may be coming. We will see.
But why would the LMCO be so much less than last year’s record year? My conjecture is that it is strictly a function of the boost given by many churches to their offering for 2015 and that as a result of the missionary downsizing. It is sad to think that Southern Baptists came through once to give a hefty boost to their support of international missions but are one and done on that.
I would love to be proven wrong in this but am not seeing any numbers that lead that way.
I’m hoping those numbers only tell part of the story. A few months ago it was news that CP giving was way behind last year, but those numbers evened out a month or two later. Let’s pray something similar happens with these figures.
William, I seem to remember some talk about the IMB not budgeting according to the LMCO goal, but according to the actual projected receipts. If my memory serves, a final total in the $155 range wouldn’t mean a $15 million budget shortfall as the budget would have been more oriented toward the $155 figure. I haven’t checked in to the details and don’t have time today, but there’s no doubt the report that came out yesterday sought to give a sky-is-falling narrative and cast things in a bad light.
According to the Message, IMB budgeted on the basis of a $163.1 offering. So, it looks like a deficit. I don’t see much chance in receipts for this month and May going way beyond the usual pattern. There should be no problem in managing with reserve funds, though. It would have been nice to see that SBC churches had gotten more serious with mission support but it looks like last year was a one time surge.
It could be that a huge number of churches started sending money directly to Richmond rather than the usual route through their state HQ and then Nashville before the dollars landed in Richmond. These direct gifts aren’t reflected in the figures released by the executive committee.
IMB isn’t talking.
Sunday, April 9th is “Cooperative Program Sunday”.
Our church will be using some resources from the NC state convention in promotion along with my comments from the poduim…
http://www.ncbaptist.org/fileadmin/about-us/cooperative-program/resources/2016/pdfs/files/CP_Beyond_NC.pdf
In addition, we are planning a CP Awareness month in June of this year – every week we will emphasize our missions endeavors made possible through our CP giving. I will use the 4 “beyonds” (one each Sunday) that are presented in the link above.
Mr Thornton, perhaps you know this. Do these figures reflect the usual uptick that occurs in giving to LM on and around Easter Sunday? Do the bean-counters figure that in with their forecast? Or do they only figure a static linear graph, and notice that to date, the giving is lower. Either way, let us pray there is an uptick the next few weeks around Easter.
Only revenue received by the Executive Committee through March 31st. If there is any mission giving on Easter I’d expect that it is for Annie Armstrong, NAMB not Lottie Moon, IMB.
I’m satisfied that people at NAMB, IMB, state conventions and the Executive Committee all have pretty good forecasting on both CP and the designated mission offerings.
…and stop calling me Mr. Thornton, whippersnapper.
Ahh brainfart…Saw Lottie thought Annie….My mistake.
I am curious as to how CP, LMCO, and AAEO are affected by coexisting offering opportunities. My church has a State Mission offering (that is used in part to send people on international missions that may work with IMB or not), a WMU offering, and a state children’s ministry. We also have Gideon’s, benevolence, and revival love offerings. We also have several independent missionaries that we support. As to LMCO, while promoting it we are also promoting Operation Christmas Child.
I assume that everyone who gives a box with a check is added to Samaritan Purse’s mailing list and is then asked to support their ministries such as disaster relief which we support through CP and state missions offerings. That is a lot of giving for our church.
When you give to samaritan’ purse you get put on a mailing list and receive frequent mailings requesting help and some reports of work done …at least our church does. When giving through CP, LMCO, AAEO, and our State you have to pay attention to our state paper which many throw away at the Post Office.
Yeah, indeed. We take a lot of offerings. You didn’t ask but my view is:
1. limit, as best the church can, the number and frequency of offerings
2. Nope, no money for OCC, maybe the shoeboxes but certainly no cash
3. The SBC and state offerings are all limited. Those in the CP distributions generally are prohibited from directly soliciting churches.
4. I don’t like any non-SBC direct solicitation even though there are some good ones.
5. Promotion of and education about the CP, LMCO, AAEO and state offering are up to the pastor who may do a poor job. Since WMU is inactive or ineffective in many SBC churches, we’ve lost a lot in education and promotion.
6. I generally did not lead my church to participate in the state mission offering or any associational special offerings. My thinking was that these were superfluous, just extra ways to tap the churches beyond CP.
You raise subjects that are worth their own separate articles and discussions.
They say that politics is downwind of culture and I think that churches (and their giving patterns, specifically in the discussion here) are downwind of what is going on in the larger Christian culture of our country. As a result of several influences, less money is being given to Lottie Moon and other SBC causes. In my humble opinion, some of the specific causes are as follows:
1. As many of the large metro areas experienced significant growth, the SBC churches also experienced growth of people who were from other parts of the country and thus were most likely to not have a background in the SBC and as a result had no knowledge of Lottie Moon, etc.
2. In order to attract this population of transplants, the pastors and leadership of these churches chose not to place a lot of emphasis on the SBC and its causes. The most visible manifestation is that many churches no longer have Baptist in their name as they have a reduced Baptist identity.
3. William, you said it pretty well when you said, “Since WMU is inactive or ineffective in many SBS churches, we’ve lost a lot in education and information.” Part of the reason for the decline of the WMU is back in the early 1980’s, the WMU was perceived to be a stronghold of moderates during the CR, therefore, many pastors discouraged its presence in their churches. The problem is that with the decline of the WMU, no other organization arose to take on the role of promoting Lottie Moon and World missions.
4. Another phenomena of recent years has been the rise of the multi- site church which also is part and parcel of my point #1. A growing multi-site often extends a lot of its giving emphasis on building funds for new locations. This is not meant as a slam at multi-sites, but it is a reality. A legacy church which has been around for 50 years or more is not looking at raising funds for building in the same way as a growing multi-site.
5. The small group movement in my opinion is another step in the trend away from the more traditional SBC identity as these groups with meet in homes usually have more latitude in what material is studied as compared to the traditional Sunday School which met in the church building on Sunday morning and the church selecting which material from Lifeway (and in an earlier time, the Sunday School Board) would be studied.
Several large high profile churches in the SBC illustrate my point, and again this is not meant as a slam, but to show the larger forces that are changing the individual churches and the SBC as a whole. First, Summit Church in the Research Triangle Park area of NC. The pastor, J.D. Grear, was runner up to be the President of the SBC, yet his church doesn’t have “Baptist” in the name and has several locations in the RTP area. While I have read Summit is generous in support of the IMB, I would imagine if you were to poll the congregation, there isn’t as much of a Baptist identity as found in rural churches. Another example is The Church at Brook Hills in suburban Birmingham. Again this is another large SBC church which doesn’t have Baptist in their name and if one looks at their website, the church supports several missionaries who are with non SBC mission organizations. I have also read that Brook Hills has withheld from giving to the Alabama Baptist Convention because of concerns over the professors at Samford University. Fellowship Church in the DFW Metroplex is another example of a multi-site church with a declined Baptist identity.
My overall point is that as the south has attracted many people from other parts of the country (and the world), the churches in the SBC have also attracted people from these other backgrounds who didn’t have a tradition of writing a check to Lottie Moon at Christmas time and with the decline of the WMU to promote it, why should anyone be surprised that there has been a decline in giving.
It seems like the way to address this is to recognize that there has to be some onsite organization within the churches to promote Lottie Moon, whether it is WMU or some new organization. Counting on the pastor to make an appeal from the pulpit a couple of weeks before Christmas is not sufficient
David, I think your analysis is right on. The average SBC member is being hit with “mission creep” also with so many good organizations hitting the well of giving. The traditional SBC member feels an obligation for Lottie Moon in addition to their tithes. Look at the SBC executive leadership and their associations, meetings and partnership with non SBC groups. When I travel I notice the Baptist on many a church billboard and signage is being downplayed. Also it is demographics, when a elderly , long term , traditional, tithing member goes home they are either not replaced or if they are the younger member has a different outlook as you referenced. Most SBC members will not be aware or if they are concerned about the shortfall.
Fact is, IMB will announce in June a LM offering for 2016 of over $150m. We will lament the fact that it is $10-12m lower than last year generally without noting that it is still a huge sum.
Interesting days lie ahead. We will not be going back to the days of 10% CP giving or to the time when churches supported LM, AA, and the CP and not much else in missions.
The IMB has closed its accounting books for the LMCO on May 31st for many years. Any money received after that date is credited toward the next year’s total. I know, from meetings with IMB leadership, that those leaders were aware that last year’s offering might be an anomaly. So, they did not budget, expecting to receive that much money from the 2016 offering. In the same meeting the leaders informed us (missions professors) that they were committed to balanced budgets based on actual income, not drawing on reserves or selling real estate overseas. In the past the IMB budgeted, assuming they would receive the full amount of the LMCO goal. When the giving fell short of the goal, which was usually the case, the IMB would adjust its budget downward. I always thought that was a strange way to operate. The current administration is not following that practice.
Both NAMB and IMB are following the longstanding practice of being tightlipped about their mission offerings until they make a grand announcement. While I like the idea of IMB making this just prior to or at the June annual meeting, seems like it would be helpful to keep Southern Baptists informed along the way. Some churches would give more, I suspect. I think we are past the days when we have come to expect these offerings to show healthy growth from year to year.
I feel sure IMB is attuned to actual receipts from 2016 LMCO being considerably under 2015 and have contingencies for the same.
William,
I’d like to remind you that:
– For some churches gone are the days of Lottie collection exclusively at Christmas time and instead it is collected as part of an annual missions offering at other times in the year.
– There were also (allegedly) a number of churches who escrowed SBC funding – perhaps this was part of that and those monies will be hopefully be rolling in soon? (I have no idea how many churches may have done this – but it appears that several may have.)
– That as Lottie contributions which may, in some churches, been collected into January….. then sent to state conventions – and there being some sort of ‘turn around time” before the money finds its destination in Richmond, VA….
Might we:
Wait until all the designated Lottie money is accounted for announced before touting “a big hit” or a “yuge falloff”?
I have come to expect such nay-saying and pot shooting from the Louisiana Message….
But I think better of you.
Tarheel, I’d like to be more optimistic. No one here is a more fervent IMB guy than I. If the numbers were just a few million short compared to last year I might be persuaded that the reasons you gave, all valid, could be the cause. I’ll grovel assiduously if I’m wrong on this.
It’s a simple case of a one time surge I believe.
Naturally and predictably WH went overboard but facts are facts.
See you in Phoenix.
I look forward to it, William!
Two years ago I spoke at a local church’s missions conference. The pastor told me that they have combined all the missions offering into one, unified offering. They receive the offering in May, but they encourage the members to put aside money throughout the year so they can give more in May. The pastor explained that he did not favor taking up the LMCO in December when his members are bombarded with requests from charities and also have lots of Christmas expenses. He said receiving the offering in May has increased the amount given. The church divides the offering by percentages, as determined by the Missions Committee.
The IMB should never have based this year’s budget on the assumption this year’s Lottie Moon Offering would be as large as last year’s.
When you admit to money mismanagement and ask for a one time huge offering to catch up (and many churches responded) – don’t then expect the next year’s offering to be as large, or larger, than that one extraordinary year.
Apparently there are other reasons for the shortfall as well.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I don’t think they set thier budget based last years substantially higher Lottie – did they?
No. The lowered the overall goal to $155 million, projected $170.5m, budgeted $163.1m. All this from the BM story. The figures look a little haywire with more budgeted than the goal set. I haven’t bothered to chase all that down nor have I looked at their latest available financial report to the SBC to see what reserves they have. I feel sure they have sufficient reserves to manage an offering that is short of the stated goal.
There are those who think there is a groundswell of opposition to the Board. Seems to me that there are critics but I highly doubt there is a large enough group to substantially lower the 2016 LMCO.
I would have as pastor tried to do more in 2016 than we did in 2015, and more in 2017 that 2016.
From what I have heard from IMB staffers is that they thought the big offering would be an exception rather than a new rule. So, they budgeted conservatively. In a recent meeting the IMB staffers told us missions professors that they expect to maintain about 3,000 career missionaries and 600 two/three year missionaries. That means they do not expect to receive lots more money. Of course, they would be delighted to receive more money and deploy more missionaries.
You guys are probably right.
I think I misread some numbers, and was only thinking of Lottie Moon income, and not remembering the IMB has other sources of income.
David R. Brumbelow
I’ll have to doublecheck but LM is about half of IMB’s income. CP around a third.
In round numbers the IMB receives about 55% of its funds from the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, about 35% from the Cooperative Program, and 10% from bequest, special gifts, and interest income. What do I mean when I write “interest income”? Most of the Lottie Moon Offering money is received January-March, but it is spent throughout the year, so the IMB deposits the money in short-term investments until the money is needed, thus drawing interest on the money until it is needed overseas.