Fears that the SBC may be returning to a societal method of mission support are unfounded if one looks at dollars given by the churches. While it is impossible to compile and categorize all mission giving by the 47,232 SBC churches, the data that is available seems sufficient to conclude that in spite of all the handwringing over the demise of the Cooperative Program, most church support for SBC causes is still through our venerable and wonderful Cooperative Program.
Here are a few factoids:
- The total CP for 2015-2016 was $475.2 million.
- The total for the designated major offerings (Lottie, Annie, etc.) and direct giving to entities is in the neighborhood of $250 million. These direct gifts are, ahem, societal gifts.
- Associations: maybe $60 million, that’s probably way over but I’m guessing (0.6% of total church undesignated receipts), another societal avenue.
- Gifts sent directly to the EC for CP allocation, $5m
So to reach a sum equal to the $475.2 million CP total, another roughly $160 million in SBC designated gifts is needed from all the smaller SBC mission organizations such as children’s homes, various state college, state or associational sponsored ministries and programs, etc., that receive direct funding from churches. I’m not seeing anything that would generate another $150+ million in societal giving.
The complaint is that the Cooperative Program as a percentage of church budgets and giving has declined by half and, thus, the SBC is moving back towards the pre-1925 societal system. No question about the decline of the CP. The Executive Committee receives more designated dollars for distribution to our SBC entities than it receives from the state conventions in CP money for distribution according to the CP allocation formula. Almost all of those designated dollars are Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong mission offering dollars. This has been the case for several years now.
The explanation and narrative is that churches are leaving cooperative giving in favor of societal giving. Generally, yes, seeing that churches have about 95% of their budgets available for non-CP causes and there are many more non-SBC causes that compete for church mission dollars. But churches are still making their choices and giving heavily to SBC missions of all kinds, to a sum approaching one billion dollars. If that is bad, then the churches may be blamed for it. After all, they make their autonomous choices. Rather than lay blame on the churches for which all denominational entities exist to serve, it’s much easier to blame high profile pastors and others for not being sufficiently cooperative which is what we see from some SBC segments.
The Cooperative Program is still our main channel for mission support. It is a huge funding engine and it is stable. Total CP giving is, well, almost as flat as a pancake having declined 0.26% annually over the five most recent years for which data are available. I expect that the figures for 2016-2017 will show an increase such that the five year trend may be totally flat. No one holds a party for a CP report that shows no growth but let’s at least say that the offering is flat, not declining.
If we are in for a series of highly contentious, high profile elections where there are winners and losers in elections and hiring decisions, then we may as well brace ourselves for a continuation of a declining Cooperative Program.
_________________
As an additional consideration here, even if we have a dual system which has one large common pool of revenue from the churches (Cooperative Program) and several streams of direct or societal giving that range from very large to very small (Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, state mission offerings, direct gifts to the seminaries and other SBC causes) the whole dual system is “cooperative” in the sense that we all agree on it and desire all segments of it to be successful. If churches or pastors are singled out because they use the giving channels but do so in what some view to be unacceptable proportions, e.g. the church that gives 2% to the CP but several times that directly to SBC causes, then that disapproval might itself be seen as an attack on our cooperative system.
Due to their long-term status, you’d have to assume that the two large missions offerings (Lottie and Annie) are untouchable and not what these critics mean, but it’s clear they are the two highest grossing “societal giving” options available. Everything else is dwarfed in comparison. William, you’ve got the numbers, can you separate out Lottie & Annie from the other $250m you mentioned? If we could see
CP vs. L&A vs. “Societal Giving”
I think it may be even more eye-opening the relatively small amount (percentage-wise) we’re talking about here.
Now none of that means we should be content or settle with current CP giving levels. I’d like to see them grow. At our church we’ve doubled our CP giving but I would like to see it continue to grow as a percentage of our church budget. I think other pastors, if and when they see the value, would seek to do the same.
Lottie Moon………$153m
Annie Armstrong. 60m
Hunger offering 3m
I’m looking at maybe $20m in other, direct gifts to the seminaries and mission boards.
Associations…it’s a guess and I’d speculate that in the aggregate this would be the third ranking non-CP item.
There are dozens of other SBC causes. All the states have their own mission offering. Hospitals, children’s homes, ministry to aging, etc. I don’t know if anyone has compiled all this.
Great Commission Giving was $646m but that’s a fairly useless statistic.
There are a lot of ways to look at all this. The hair-on-fire crowd that says we are replacing cooperative giving with societal giving have a talking point. Still, CP gets the most of SBC church mission dollars. We are a demonstrably cooperative bunch.
CP $475m
LM/AA $213m
All other…can’t quantify that. I’d guess $100-150m
I don’t think the associational giving, state missions offerings, etc… are the target either for the “societal giving” criticism. It certainly falls under that category, but I hardly think the critics are saying stop giving to those. The numbers that matter here are
475m — 213m — 20m
CP — LM/AA — Direct (non-CP)
They’re talking about when churches give to Nashville around a state convention, directly to IMB, seminaries, ERLC, etc… And the bottom line is that amount is something like 4% of total CP giving. If you took that 20 million and added it to the 475m, after all the distributions, it wouldn’t change very much. The state conventions would be the primary ones to benefit by keeping ~12m spread among all of them. National entities who receive direct gifts would receive less, probably impossible to calculate.
In other words, all this anger/criticism over “societal giving” is really addressing a relatively small problem (if you even see it as a problem).
I’ll add here that I don’t see it as a problem for churches to direct giving as they see fit. Unfortunately, some churches are in areas they can’t support their state convention, or feel their state convention allocations are not acceptable. Other churches want a more focused giving plan. Some give a good amount to the CP and then on top of that support a specific entity. Our attitude about the ~20m in question here should be (as William has said elsewhere) “Thank you!” not “that doesn’t really count!”
I left out a significant, though small comparatively, line of direct giving, the amount churches sent directly to the Executive Committee for distribution according to the CP allocation formula. This was $5m for 2015-2016. This isn’t CP since it cuts out the state conventions. I’ve always said that this type of giving (even if you include money sent directly to the boards and seminaries) is a single digit percentage. Real money but not a deal breaker for the CP.
Is there a legitimate concern that churches are adding missions funding outside of SBC life?
For example, the church I pastor went up 2% in missions giving two budget years ago: 1% directly to a church replant project and 1% to a Wycliffe Bible Translators missionary. 10 years ago, if I had pastored a church wanting to increase its missions giving, we would have either done 2% up in CP or 1%CP and 1% local association.
Now, though, are there more churches setting their CP as a baseline and then adding other missions groups or missions opportunities rather than increasing throughput in SBC legacy institutions? As long as I pastor SBC churches, the CP will be the primary missions funding method, but I can see adding another direct missionary or small missions group before going up on CP.
Is that part of the concern being raised?
I think the concern raised is mostly partisan, ‘We like our guy better than their guy’ and here’s a talking point for that. I don’t hear the state leaders for North Carolina or Tennessee or Arkansas complaining about Greear, Gaines, or Floyd’s churches giving millions to the CP, of which they keep more than half, even though all of these churches are below the SBC CP average percentage.
Those who have genuine concerns about the flat CP are displeased with local church decisions to support non-SBC missions and are displeased that churches have made opportunity cost decisions that allocate their mission money less to CP and more to the two mission offerings and other direct support.
The “target” for the societal giving critics are the churches with below average CP percentages. How these churches arrived at that percentage doesn’t seem to be all that important even though there is a vast difference in a church that gives 2-4% to CP but then all of the rest of their mission giving to SBC causes like LM, AA, associtions, etc., and a church that does the 2-4% CP and then the rest to non-SBC causes. When specified, the target seems to be SBC megachurches. Odd, the same critics weren’t too loud when Steve Gaines was running for president although Bellevue is in the category of below average CP percentage.
I can’t see how disparaging churches that are very healthy givers to the CP and other SBC causes is going to help the CP .
I am thankful for the Cooperative Program, and I believe it made a big contribution to the growth of the SBC. However, many pastors, especially young pastors, do not appreciate it, nor do they support it enthusiastically. They just don’t see the value of it. They value the ministries of the mission boards and seminaries, but they do not see the value in state conventions. The state conventions must convince the pastors that they are worthy of support. Perhaps our Voices commenters can suggest ways in which the state conventions could do this.
William I agree. I just wish we could get away from the “shaming” of, especially small congregations, who wish to maintain control of where their contributions are sent, so they give less to the CP so they can give more to other specific SBC causes such as Lottie Moon or Annie Armstrong. I get what the CP is for. Really I do. My church has a limited budget, we pray over how it is spent, so I can’t see how it is ever helpful to try and pressure churches like mine to do otherwise. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I think the bigger picture is shown by what Doug mentioned. Many churches are actually increasing their overall missions funding in various capacities. The Summit, the current big target of many, sends missionaries through the IMB but they also send out short-term teams to help those IMB workers. We must remember that all IMB workers are sent/supported by each SBC church. However, Summit does not stop with a check mailed or a worker sent. That should be applauded.
Here in North America The Summit has planted churches with NAMB but they also support them on top of what NAMB does and if they have or do seek other partnerships is that not part of what our local church autonomy allows? NAMB can’t fully fund a new church. When a church comes alongside a planter to train him, invest in him and his family, allow him to recruit a team and then sends them out then that too should be both applauded and copied. In doing so that “mother” church might use more funds in church planting than others but they are working for the kingdom.
Has anyone ever thought about the time, money and energy given to Operation Christmas Child in our churches and how that might reduce the available funding for Lottie Moon or the probably non-existent funding for Baptist Global Relief? OCC is a good thing but we all know that choices have to be made at the individual and church level in regards to financial support for the myriad array of worthwhile causes out there.
THere is a local church here in Raleigh(Bay Leaf) that lavishly loves on seminary families at SEBTS. They organize a Toy Chest that I did not believe when I first was told about it. In doing so they are investing time, money and energy into those families and might not be able to do another good cause but they do it out of love. Those who support OCC do it for the same reason.
I am not a member of The Summit. I have visited and worshipped there many times. I went with a friend Saturday before my home church had an event. Brother Greear preached about as Baptist and gospel-drenched a sermon as you will hear. He has an undeniable heart for the lost and that is our heavenly Father’s heart too. I wish that would be celebrated more across the SBC. It does not mean that you have to vote for him but brothers he is one of us and we need more like him in our churches and across the globe.
I forgot to metion that many churches are filling the gap where the IMB is not currently engaged. Our church works in Moldova and Benin. We also are faithful to the CP, along with Lottie & Annie. So it is not one or the other. It is an addition to those traditional methods.
Good article William…
I think this is an important take away from your article.
“If we are in for a series of highly contentious, high profile elections where there are winners and losers in elections and hiring decisions, then we may as well brace ourselves for a continuation of a declining Cooperative Program.”
I agree completely.
I would add that the 2016 election was accepted as a win for almost everyone. I wish 2018 would be as well.