William Thornton gained his fame and fortune as the SBC Plodder. One of the strengths of that blog has been his perspective on Cooperative Program issues. He recently started a new blog, called “Cooperative Program Observer” where this article was originally published.
I have heard the Cooperative Program praised and criticized. I’ve seen it held up as if it were inscribed on stone by God’s Own Finger (not to be sinister but His left index finger, anthropomorphically speaking). I’ve heard many a Baptist offer suggestions – some outrageous, some eminently sensible. But what I have never heard anyone do is suggest or propose a workable alternative to the Cooperative Program.
There are millions of Southern Baptists. There are tens of thousands of pastors, denominational leaders, and others who understand the mechanics of our common work. Surely, something would have bubbled up if a better concept existed.
There are almost as many CP critics, some rather unstinting and strident, and such is one of Southern Baptists’ favorite sports.
Question for any and all, “What is your proposal for an alternative?” I would be the first to favor a better funding scheme if I found it.
I know of none.
Without the CP the SBC as we have known it would cease to exist. If the CP were deep-sixed the mission boards would continue right on, the seminaries would be reduced in number, perhaps to three or four. State conventions would figure out a way to survive but at a dramatically reduced level. Baptist life would change dramatically.
My guess is that I have never heard of an alternative because the CP is recognized by all as being such a sensible funding scheme. It’s not perfect but it does make good sense.
But there are thoughts I have not had, ideas I have not formed. So, if you know of an alternative, please, enlighten me.
I feel compelled to offer an apology here for the fact that this subject manifestly lacks the sexiness of previous discussions on Calvinism, on insulting one another, and on hurling accusations against our fellow SBCers, brothers in Christ.
No apology will be offered for the salient point that in many ways, the SBC sinks or swims together with the robustness or anemia of the Cooperative Program.
I think that yours is the more important topic, William.
I guess I wish those who refuse to lead their churches to give through the CP would explain how their system (which is generally to use the money for themselves, or at least their own way in missions) is an improvement over the CP.
It always amazes me that so many preachers who had their education substantially subsidized via the Cooperative Program, would turn their backs on it when their church budget time rolls around.
Even I can spell “hypocrite”.
And we needn’t concern ourselves with the CP being the “best”, or being proud of it. It’s good, it’s excellent, and it should be supported. If a church doesn’t do that, it’s no better than a church member who won’t pay his tithe to the church because some one thing or another they do, doesn’t please the member.
Excellent insights, Bob from Ohio
That’s Ohiolabama, Dave. Come to think of it, I may have been mentioned in Genesis 36:18 (except for that troublesome detail about being married to Esau).
Cleveland, Ohioabama?
OK by me, Dave BrewerofLiteBeerowa.
And, incidentally, for 32 years that I’ve been at FBC Pelham, we have, without fail, sent 10% of undesignated receipts to the CP (and another 4% for the local association and for our church mission activities). My personal belief is that’s the reason God blesses FBCP despite the stuff we do wrong.
I thought CP giving had been redefined as Great Commission Giving.
Is that meant as a joke or as a serious comment?
CP giving is still CP giving. There was a minor change on the reporting in the ACP to include giving to other SBC categories in a greater category known as GCG.
I’m guessing you are just taking a shot, but it is still an unfair shot.
Not to nudge a hornet’s nest, but I think the most brilliant part of the GCR report was its identification of the root problem – a growing self-centeredness among Christians in America. Christians now (on average) keep over 97% of their income for themselves. Churches keep 94% or more for their own use. We, even churches, are more self-centered and less interested in ministry that we do not a) control and b) directly benefit from.
As we TALK about being missional, many churches are simply becoming more selfish.
Rant over.
Well, I have to give you that, Dave. The point you mentioned was indeed the best thing about the GCR Report–the one no one ever talks about anymore.
So, we agree on something?
I take that as a sign of progress!
We agree on 95% of everything. It’s that 5% that trips us up.
That is one of the realities of blogging. We who agree on 95% of things argue about the 5%.
Yep…and aint it a shame that we cant dwell more on the things that we do agree on? I mean, we’ve got a whole world of lost people, out there, who need Jesus. And, we’ve got much evil in this world going on….sex trafficking; abortion; false teaching; drug and alcohol addiction; child abuse; and CB Scott. Sorry, CB, I couldnt resist that one. 🙂 Anyway, we’ve got a lot of work to do, and it seems that all we can do is argue and debate over the 5%…..
David
I think that the point of blogging is to discuss those areas if divergence. We need not avoid those topics, just discuss them in context, remembering that it is a family discussion, not a discussion between the people if His and the enemies if the gospel.
I am an independent Baptist missionary and I attend a Southern Baptist Church when we are home. I think the cooperative program is great, and I would like to do something to get independents together (I know that kind of goes against itself). I think that one thing they could do with the CP is have more missionaries present in the churches to see what a real live missionary looks like. And I really would like southern Baptist churches to start supporting some independent missionaries. Like the stat from Dave says, churches keep 94% and individuals 97%. I think that could change with the presence of missionaries in the churches to put a face on the IMB, NAMB, CP or whatever. I am working on developing a blog to face these issues (the idea of SBC churches supporting independents is just one of 7-8 points on changing the face of missions).
I am in the exact same place as David, being a SBC member and a missionary with a non-IMB mission. The very reason we didn’t go with the IMB is because there has become a huge disconnect between the missionaries and the churches. Our church has historically sent a large amount of money to the cooperative program and I have yet to come across one member of my church who knows the name of a single IMB missionary. We have never had one at our church. I think that is a problem. I firmly believe that is the mission board’s failure to involve the churches. I don’t think it is the church’s responsibility to pursue the missionaries to come and tell what they are doing. In my opinion it is just complacency that has led to it. It isn’t unique to the IMB though. We have friends with our mission who are members of a CMA church, which salaries their missionaries as well. They said it is the same situation in their church.
This isn’t a IMB bashing post, just highlighting a problem that I see, and I think will get worse. As I said before I just think it is complacency. If I get complacent about keeping people updated, informed, and involved, I don’t get to stay in the field. With the IMB there isn’t that risk, immediately anyway. It does account for decreases in giving though, which I think will only increase. IMHO
I’m a pastor’s wife in a little SBC church in rural Kansas. We just had a visit from a retiring SBC missionary who came from our church before being called to South America. I grew up in a large Baptist church in Oklahoma, and at least five of my youth group buddies joined the Journeyman program (two are permanent missionaries now). And at this moment I can name well over two dozen SBC missionaries (some currently serving, some retired) that I know from church, college, or just life. This is normal in my circle of acquaintance.
I have never felt disconnected from the work of the IMB or NAMB. The resources are available to stay connected, and the missionaries I know make an effort to inform people with blogs, videos, and newsletters. Even in our little church that you probably couldn’t find on a map we know our missionaries and keep up with their activities. It all depends on the local church’s priorities in my humble opinion.
I agree that there are definitely some churches that have stayed connected. Especially the ones who have had their members go to the field. The ones who have not had anyone leave from their church to go to the field are the ones primarily lacking the connection. If there are 44,000 churches in the SBC and approximately 4,000 IMB missionaries, that means there are at minimum 40,000 SBC churches that do not currently have one of their members serving in another country. I would say international missions at my church, prior to us going to the field was not a priority, despite sending over 200,000 dollars a year to the CP. The reason wasn’t because the people didn’t care, it was because the didn’t know any better. No one had ever educated them on what it means to be involved and supporting missionaries. They felt that being a mission minded church simply meant the church treasurer cut a check to the CP every month. And that was my point. I think that there are thousands of SBC churches that have not made missions a priority simply because they don’t know any better. There are several stages. Those who don’t know that they don’t know, those who know they don’t know, and those who know that they know. Unfortunately I think the disconnect over time has led to many in the category of being those who don’t know that they don’t know. It is those who I think the IMB should focus on educating for missions.
David & Steve,
I have had the privilege of serving as a missionary both with an interdenominational faith mission as well as with the IMB. I think you may find my observations on this experience interesting:
http://sbcimpact.org/2011/01/28/both-sides-now-imb-faith-missions/
Well written article and a good picture of the pros and cons of both roads.
The reason no one offers a workable alternative to the Cooperative Program is because there really isn’t one. It was genius in 1925, and it is genius in 2013.
Denominations that aren’t us wish that they were us in the matter of cooperative giving. Even little bitty churches like the one I pastor can feel that they’re making a difference through their gifts to the Cooperative Program.
I’ve benefited greatly from a subsidized education and subsidized income as a young pastor. Now, as a more mature pastor, I’m glad that I can contribute my part through my church toward the growth and expansion of the kingdom of God.
I can’t emphasize enough how much I agree with Dale’s response. I could not envision a different funding approach for the Southern Baptist Convention precisely because the Cooperative Program is today the MOST Southern Baptist of all distinctives.
I’d argue that it is even more distinctive than the CR in part because there are moderates that still believe in the CP and still give to it in spite of the CR. They do that as a matter of faithfulness to the ideal of supporting the Great Commission because they believe that giving is MORE IMPORTANT than politics.
We’ve played footsie with them in the past–even suggesting their giving isn’t welcome in the SBC–but in reality that’s God’s decision to reject their giving. I see no problem with very firm positions that it doesn’t come with promises. But today’s primary political barrier to change is congregational polity at the national level. Should there be a revolution in demography, the thing that is most likely to hold the Convention together is, very precisely, the continuation of the Cooperative Program.
Therefore I could never recommend replacing it. I just can’t imagine Southern Baptist life without it.
I don’t know why but this post is not showing up on my bloglines reader. I didn’t know it was even here. That could be part of the problem.
While I am still listening and praying about how I will serve a future church (senior, bi-vo, associate, ect), I do know that when I go before search committees I will have two lines of questions for the church.
First, I would ask how the church would respond if I not only invited a non-white family to visit, but to actually join and be active in the church. If the answer is negative I would ask the committee if they would want that to change (ie it would be a major issue of my ministry).
Second, I would ask what their level of CP giving is. Any answer less than 15% and my response would be, what would the church say if I pushed for more, even if it meant sacrificing other parts of the church budget?
I think for me, the responses to those questions would tell me quite clearly if it is a church worth serving.
As a SBC seminary graduate, and having a good friend who has served as a Journey-person with the IMB, i truly know the benefit of the CP and vow to make sure my church supports it as much as possible. I also will make sure that my state convention, is sending as much forward as it can, eliminating as much waste and cutting as much fat as possible. There may be reasons why some states less, but those reasons must be good.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm to give generously to the CP, this is ultimately a local church decision and as we all know, local churches may be substantially different from each other. Fifteen plus percent would be among the fraction of very high CP givers, about 3x the average. Go for it, SV but…
Old graybeards like me, Dave Miller, C. B. Scott, et al have seen churches whose facilities were so dilapidated or outdate that membership was hemmorhaging and giving was declining as a result. That’s a church that might consider taking care of their plant. We’ve seen churches that impoverished their pastor and his family to maintain a CP percentage well above average, the largest chunk of which went to pay state convention employees and expenses, all of whom were better paid than their own pastor.
There are some things to pray over and consider.
What states keep and what they do with it are topics separate from this one.
The first church I pastored was in a little retirement community on the Oregon coast. Our CP giving was at 18%. They paid me less than $500 a month. After I’d been there for a few months we had our budget committee meet to determine our annual budget. Somehow the discussion came around to financial priorities. I was then informed that, should it become necessary to prioritize which bills got paid and which would go into default, my salary was at the bottom of the list. If it came down to it, CP giving would trump my salary every time. Fortunately, I never had to test those waters.
OUCH!… seems the FIRST priority for a Church would be to have an elder dedicated to expositing the scriptures and guiding the flock. The local church in the local community is a gospel mission also. There should be some balance.
I use the 15% specifically as a “target”. Yes i know most churches will never reach that level. But I think it is a better “goal” than 10%. Even then if a church is giving 15%, it SHOULD regularly ask itself “Can we give more”. Not just as a body, but also the individuals in the church as well. Just because the majority of Americans dont tithe near 10% doesn’t mean that that should not be a valid goal. And for those that do, that does not mean that they should not consider giving more if it is what God leads.
I’m probing here but how would you feel about a church that gave 8% to CP and an equal amount directly to the two boards through the LM and AA offerings?
Would that church be viewed less favorably than the church that gave 15% to CP and half a percent each to the boards?
Again, I was using 15% as a “target”. Even at 8% my question to the church would “Can you/we do more?” I think any time a church gets complacent and “full” of itself puffing up their chest and saying “Well that is good enough” is dangerous. A church should always push itself. It should always be asking “what else, what more can we do”. Sometimes that “something else” is money. Sometimes it is service. Sometimes it is just prayer. But I do think that sometimes an unfortunate number of our SBC churches get too high on themselves and forget the CP. They think they can do a better job. And maybe on the local level where they are at, they are right. But they forget about the rest of their state, they forget about the rest of the country, they forget about the world, they forget about the education of young ministers and educators and missionaries. If every church had that type of mindset, the SBC would cease to function. Thus I think a healthy church says “Can we do more?!” An unhealthy church says “Let someone else give, we have our own problems.”
“…a church worth serving.”
I’m not gonna lie. This statement concerns me. I think you probably mean something different than how it sounds though.
I apoligize if it sounds bad, but I will not even try to serve a SBC church that says “We dont give to the CP, and we never will”. Neither will I serve a church that says “We dont want any ‘colored’ families in our church.” Even if in both cases they use terminology that is different, I will not waste my time. That is why, if you noticed I added a second question to each group that will say a lot. That is basically “Do you want to change?” If a church tells me they have racist roots, but do want to be pushed to change and overcome that, I can work with them. If a church says they dont really give to the CP, but would consider being pushed and seeing if they can give some/more.
I get what you’re saying. And honestly I’d have a terrible difficulty accepting a pastorate at a racist church. I wouldn’t hide my disdain for that in the interview either. In the same way I would know that it’s gonna be tough to pastor a church not dedicated to missions through the CP.
But I also believe in the power of the gospel. (Not saying you don’t). I just have a hard time saying ‘I won’t serve here”, when Paul served some really jacked up churches. I guess I’ve just seen people say “I never will….” only to have Gods Spirit come wreak havoc on their expectations.
Mike,
You have spoken truly on this fine night…..
David
PS. My Church gives 20% to the CP, in case anyone is wondering. We just gave over $15,000 to the Annie Armstrong Offering.
William,
You ask: But what I have never heard anyone do is suggest or propose a workable alternative to the Cooperative Program.
I’m not sure of the long term results, but such a plan was proposed and voted on and approved a couple of years ago. It is called: Great Commission Giving.
I know of some congregations that have decreased CP giving, but with the new accounting system on the ACP’s … when you plug in the new boxes (for other SBC Causes) their new total for Great Commission Giving seems astronomical.
David mentioned that his church gives 20% to CP (they are a great Church!). Yet another church of similiar size and/or total undesignated receipts could decrease their CP, but give monies to other SBC causes and greatly increase their own direct missions program … and while their CP appears less than David’s congregation, their Great Commission Giving can appear much, much greater.
If I’m wrong … may the Plodder go gently on me 🙂
I think you are wrong, Ron, to view GCG as an alternative plan to the CP. GCG is merely an accounting presentation feature for the Annual Church Profile and for those who report on church giving in denominational news outlets. It merely applies a recognizable label to the reality on the ground for SBC churches and their giving patterns.
The value of GCG is that it offers a metric besides Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon, and Annie Armstrong giving. Some worry that GCG devalues the CP while others conclude that GCG increases the value of giving to SBC causes.
I really think the whole Great Commission Giving was a way for Churches that dont give much of a percentage to the CP to look better. That way, a Church that gives 1% to the CP, but gives 11% of it’s budget to starting Churches and to go on mission trips, wouldnt look so bad….especially when running for SBC office, or when being appointed to SBC boards and committees.
Otherwise, why else would anyone care about reporting GCP on a SBC Annual Church Profile? I mean, why would it be so important for the other gifts to be reported? Why would this be such a concern?
Ron, thanks for your kind words, too. May God help Bethel to be a great Church.
David
Why is it a concern to report any giving? Why just CP? If we’re interested in how much a church is involved in missions, GCG reporting makes sense. That way, churches which cut CP giving (to avoid funds going to Southern, etc) but fund missions through other means can still have their overall missions spending reported.
I’m still of the opinion that all such reporting accomplishes essentially nothing except to take up lots of time and spawn lots of arguments, but if we’re going to have to report numbers, let’s keep the numbers comprehensive – all missions, not just a certain subset of missions.
Chris,
No matter what we might all think about reporting how much a Church gives, CP giving has always been used as a measuring stick. People have looked at what a Church gives, as they contemplate whether to vote for a fella for SBC office; example, Dr. Frank Page winning over Dr. Ronnie Floyd a few years ago. The very small percentage that Ronnie Floyd’s Church gave to the CP, back then, probably got him defeated that year.
David
David,
I suppose I can understand it on that basis, a kind of measure of denominational participation/support. But most of us will never run for an office in the SBC.
I grumble at the numbers thing, but mostly unjustly, I know. I’m just not a fan of numbers. But just this week I was talking with my DOM and we were looking over some of the historical numbers of my church (attendance, membership, baptisms – not cp) and they are useful to note certain trends, but they still annoy me.
David, money spend on a church’s mission trip generally does not qualify as Great Commission Giving unless the money was given to an entity (association, NAMB, IMB). My churches did lots of mission trips but checks we wrote to the travel agent, hotel, etc. and I would not put in GCG but would in ‘other missions.’
GCG would include CP, AA, LM, Association, state missions offering, children’s home, etc. Not local church expenses.
I don’t necessarily disagree that GCG is a designer stat which would make many churches look better. It merely reflects what churches are already doing.
This is a question to be examined later. I wanted to clarify your statement about mission trips being dumped in GCG. But no one tells a local church what to do, certainly not Nashville, and sometimes note even Jesus.
William,
I guess I was thinking more about starting Churches….some bigger Churches actually fund Church starts from their own budget. My Church…not a big Church….has helped a Church get started in a town near us. We’ve given them $1,000 per month for the past 2 years. I was under the impression that that would count.
David
William, or anyone else who cares to answer,
Why is only $250 annually required by the SBC from a local church to be a SBC congregation in good standing with the SBC, given the value & importance of the Cooperative Program? Shouldn’t the SBC require a higher amount or percentage given the significance of the CP as stated by most commenters in this thread stream? If a congregation that’s apart of the SBC is giving to valid mission causes that the SBC is not giving to, is that “selfish” or meeting needs that for whatever reasons the SBC refuse to meet. Our church faithfully gives 10% to missions. Much of it goes to ministries that the SBC would not give to for various reasons. Is our method not a valid, biblical, acceptable way to support missions?
What about the conscientious objectors to giving ten % + to the CP? Can u give 10% to the CP without supporting the view that a woman cannot teach Hebrew at certain SBC seminaries, or deliver a chapel speech? To support those views is to support sexism and an unbiblical attitude toward women from my vantage point. Can I give 10% + to the CP and not support the heinous, unbiblical policies at the IMB? Their objections to praying in tongues in private by a believer so gifted is a clear violation of 1Corinthians 14:2, 39, where Paul affirmed this and instructed the church not to forbid it? Can u give 10% + to the CP without granting silent approval that in 2013, in spite of all the lip service, there is not one minority entity head in the SBC? The one unaddressed issue in the Richard Land/Trayvon Martin debacle was the fact that according to Land, the majority of The SBC constienuency who contacted him agreed with the racial remarks that he later repented of and retracted. Should we give 10 % + to a system with these inherent racial flaws? Todd Littleton offered a resolution designed to change the perception that the majority of the SBC supported Land’s racial remarks before they were retracted by Land, & he was rejected. I know of African American SBC churches who will not increase their CP giving, & Black Baptist Churches who will not join the SBC in part because the convention itself did not repudiate the remarks Land later retracted. Thank God, the Luter election, & the Ken Weathersby appointment at the EC are two very positive moves in the right direction, but the last four entity heads hired, since I have been observing are Anglo. Before some of us will increase our CP giving, we will have to see minority inclusion & empowerment at the highest levels.
Dwight,
If one held the kind of issues with the SBC that you report (specifically, believe the IMB policies to be heinous, take issue with the SBC stance on women) I would not expect that person to want to belong – to the SBC. While I agree that the prayer language issue should not be an issue for IMB exclusion since it is not addressed in the BF&M (though I do agree with the IMB position that the practice is unbiblical), I do not think their policy can in any sense be described as heinous. As for women preaching – whether in church, chapel or otherwise – the Bible is clear enough, as we have discussed before. I hope the SBC never shifts on this issue, or it will be me who has to find a new denominational home.
Chris,
The SBC did not hold these positions when I joined. It was not me who changed it was the SBC that changed. I have chosen to stay with the hope that the SBC might adopt more biblical practices in these areas & quite frankly because of the annuity board. But my point to William was, CP giving allows a church to express her convictions regarding these matters, much like what was done by the conservatives-or at least threat ed-when the moderates were in charge of the convention.
In spite of the aforementioned flaws of the SBC I still view her as a mighty expression of God’s Kingdom advancing & expanding to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. Therefore, many of us remain. The basic elements that attracted me to the SBC are yet in place. However, there is still room for major improvement, and that is what impacts CP giving, or lack thereof, which is my point.
Dwight,
Did you join prior to the conservative resurgence?
Chris,
I joined in 1983. I was a part of the conservative resurgence. I asked the BGCT executive board to adopt a statement supporting inerrancy. I fully supported the conservative resurgence. I was ignorant to the fact that some conservatives-not of the Ken Hemphill ilk-would deny a woman an opportunity to teach Hebrew & Church History. I was also ignorant to the fact that the conservative cessationist(sp) mindset in the SBC was as strong as it was. All conservatives are simply not on the same page regarding these issues.
Chris,
One more response. I don’t take issue with the BF&M statement on women. A woman teaching Hebrew or speaking in chapel(which has happened since the conservative resurgence has been in charge) does not violate the BF&M 2000. That’s my point. If the BF&M restricted a woman from serving in these roles, it would cause me to think seriously about leaving.
Dwight, let me respond.
1) The $250 thing was instituted LONG ago, when $250 counted a little more than it does today. Perhaps we should raise that today.
2) The whole point was to give even small churches the ability to have a say in denominational affairs.
3) The IMB policies were a huge mistake. They would never pass today, but I don’t know if they are ever going to be repealed. I certainly hope so.
4) I support the BF&M 2000 position on family/women’s issues. I’m not sure all of it should be in our doctrinal statement. Still working through that. However, it is what it is.
So, in effect, the SBC will probably not change the giving formula anytime soon. It would be seen by those who have a negative view of our leadership anyway as an effort to exclude smaller churches from decision-making.
Here’s my proposal. If you give at all thru the CP, you get one messenger – one vote. If you give a buck, you get a vote. But extra messengers are not won through the amount you give, but the percentage. If you give 1-2%, you get 2 messengrs. 2-3% gets you three messengers. Up to a total of 10.
That would mean that a lot of big churches would only get 1 messenger, while a lot of smaller churches would get 10.
David,
Your formula is the first time I’ve ever heard tell of such a propsosal. Great idea. This positively addresses so many issues including Les Puryear’s small churches lack of inclusion/empowerment concerns. Have you ever thought about making this proposal to the EC or convention? (Headed to do a wedding. Will not be able to respond for awhile)
Ah, Dwight, Pandora’s Box…
Your questions illustrate how delicate the CP really is – no one has to give to it and most of us dislike to some degree something about it.
The $250: This is the historic figure, unchanged for many decades, an insignificant amount today. There has to be some figure. Perhaps $1k would be more appropriate but the threshold level should be low. Various feelers about increasing the amount have not gained traction. I doubt any denominational leader would attempt it.
The 10%: While a number of people trumpet a “tithe” to the CP, it has been a generation since the average church gave anywhere near this and we will never again approach an average anywhere near 10%. Many SBCers resent being told what is an acceptable percentage and don’t appreciate the attempts by some to badger churches into giving more by heaping guilt on them for not giving certain percentages.
On giving to various missions: Giving less to SBC missions, including the CP, and giving more to non-SBC missions is a long term trend among churches. No one can argue with your attempting to follow the Lord’s leading.
An anecdote for you and others on percentages. I met with a state convention staff member a few years ago and said, “Look, for various reasons, we aren’t giving much to the CP right now.” His reply was something like this, “We will be happy to serve you, your church, regardless of your CP giving. What can I do for you?”
I appreciated that attitude.
William,
Thanks. A great response.
Possibly one reason some do not suggest an alternative is that they know how hard it is to change something that ingrained. So instead they as an autonomous church just do an alternative.
If a church brought in say, $300,000 in undesignated gifts and gave 15% to CP, 3 percent to LM, 2% to AA, 4% to the local BA, took one week each for State Missions offering, State Baptist Retirement offering, State Baptist Children’s homes, and gave to local beevolent missions such as, a Christian shelters, day camps, etc. that would probably be a minimum of 33% of the undesignated funds. This would make the $300,000 about $200,000. This would greatly diminish the local churches ability to fund a church plant themselves, expand on local missions, or do a host of other gospel centered work they may feel called of God to do. In fact at that point the local church would only be able to fund one full time pastor a part time secretary and maybe another bi-vocational pastor postion. After paying a part time janitor, building upkeep (not new projects), insurance, revival and VBS costs along with the cost of LW lititure there would be little if anything left for expansion of facilities or church missions. Once again balance must take place.