Next year is the centennial of our venerable flagship giving scheme, the Cooperative Program. One hundred years of, well, caring and sharing and all that.
What a great idea! Churches pool their giving in a single fund, the Cooperative Program. State conventions collect it, take a portion, and forward all the rest to the SBC Executive Committee which, in accord with messenger votes, parcel the money out to our entities – IMB, NAMB, the six seminaries, ERLC. A small slice is kept by the EC.
Tennessee Baptist Mission Board directors seek to reallocate funds from national CP to IMB
During their meeting Sept. 10 at Forest Hills Baptist Church in Nashville, TBMB directors also approved a change in how CP gifts will be distributed between the Tennessee Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Board members will recommend to messengers at the state convention’s annual meeting (aka “The Summit”) in November a percentage allocation of 55 percent for the TBC, 40 percent for the SBC and 5 percent for the International Mission Board. The budget requires approval of convention messengers.
It’s been quite a while since I crunched any CP numbers but this has my attention because it is a frontal assault on the integrity of the Cooperative Program. No longer do Tennessee church CP dollars go to the EC and then to the mission boards and seminaries, etc. If approved by messengers, the Tennessee convention makes it’s own direct allocation, 5% of CP dollars given by their churches, to the IMB.
I would vote for the motion were I in Tennessee because
- This multiplies international mission support. According to TBC figures (I’m doing some rounding here), the 5% sent directly to IMB would be $1.75 million. Under the old scheme that $1.75m would be split with the TBC and then again split by the EC leaving around $420,000 for IMB. Under the new plan, IMB gets a big raise, immediately and directly.
- This expresses doubts and dissatisfaction with the Cooperative Program. I don’t know the TBC directors states-of-mind but choosing to go this route around the CP, bypassing the CP, doesn’t hang in isolation. Repeated issues with the EC, some of the seminaries, and the ERLC all degrade support for the CP. This is a sensible response to that.
- This may be the new SBC giving scheme going forward: State conventions giving directly to IMB (for various reasons, I don’t see NAMB getting the same treatment) because they view that as a better way to spend the churches mission money. Churches still give the largest share of IMB funding through their individual Lottie Moon offerings. And IMB still gets the largest share of the national CP allocation, 50.5%.
- That a major, legacy state convention proposes this raises many questions. Has the CP been degraded to the point where such alternatives are attractive? Do state conventions and churches actually trust the EC with their money? Are scarce mission dollars better concentrated toward international missions than a panoply of other causes? Do people in Tennessee (or Georgia, or Texas, or Florida) need to support six geographically spaced seminaries in the 21st century? Is there anyone left who supports the”whole” CP as it has been from the beginning 99 years ago?
- If all state conventions followed this practice, there would be some acrimony. Seminaries wouldn’t like it because they lose major dollars.
- It is a black eye, a kick in the teeth to the traditional CP. Pick your own metaphor.
Being retired, I don’t follow SBC inside baseball, deep weeds stuff as I once did. But this TBC proposal got my attention. If my math is awry, correct me.
______________________
Questions for astute readers:
- Is this a good idea for state conventions?
- Is 5% of CP gifts direct to IMB enough?
- What could the EC do to raise the confidence in the traditional CP (church gifts to state convention to national EC to entities)?
- For Tennesseans, many of whom are long suffering Vol fans, what has brought you to this point? Do you like the idea? How will you vote?
