William is the SBC Plodder.
My insightful friend and fellow blogger, Bart Barber, has a short article on SBC Voices entitled, “It’s the CP, not the SQ”, in which he says,
“I write today to disabuse you all of the idea that defending the Cooperative Program means defending the status quo.”
I’ve concluded that our venerable denominational funding scheme, The Cooperative Program, has become an inherently status quo system with little chance of accommodating major changes. This article explains why.
To discuss this necessarily involves dividing the question of status quo into two parts: (1) state convention spending and the percentage of CP revenues that they keep rather than forward to the SBC Executive Committee for allocation to national entities. This is commonly called the “split”, (2) the SBC Cooperative Program allocation formula, the percentages of CP revenue forwarded by the EC to the International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, the six seminaries, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and the Executive Committee itself.
I believe the status quo is vigorously defended and quite evident in both.
State Conventions and the Split
State conventions keep an average of about 62% of every CP dollar. There has been little variation in this split with states dipping below 60% only twice (when Truman was president). In the 35 year period I have been either a seminary student, SBC church pastor, or retired SBC pastor the percentage has had a very narrow range, between a low of about 61% (1987-1988) and a high of about 65% (1979-1980). The recent trend is slightly downward, measured by fractions of percentage points.
I recognize a couple of things about the split.
(1) The original CP agreement of yea scores and scores of years ago was that states keep half, plus the expense of promoting the CP; so, states expect to have a floor of 50% and add to that various percentage points for promotion. This 50% plus agreement means a guaranteed and expected floor of 55 or 60 percent, depending on the accounting techniques of the individual state conventions. Even a new state convention like the Southern Baptists of Texas, although free of some the legacy constituencies that the states have accumulate, varies only a little from that. They keep 45%.
(2) Many of the states have declared an intent to move to a 50/50 split, although 50/50 in some cases means 55/45 or so, depending on the promotional expense add-ons individual to each state. No state is talking about major percentage changes. Not one.
When people like Bryant Wright, former SBC president, speaks of state conventions needing to move to a 25/75 split, moving from 62% to 55% or so looks a lot like a lot of resistance to change and some rather aggressive defense of the status quo. We could all do like Texas and ditch the current convention and get a fresh start with a another one where there would be competition for church CP dollars and then move a bit below 50% in the split but that is unlikely to happen. State conventions could indeed vote to give away a substantial part of their revenue stream. I don’t see that happening but if some state wishes to make me a believer, I’m ready for it.
Status quo.
SBC allocation formula
Here’s the current allocation formula:
IMB 50.41%
NAMB 22.79%
Seminaries 22.16%
ERLC 1.65%
EC 2.99%
There have been changes over the years but the three major components, IMB, NAMB, and the six seminaries have always the main recipients consuming almost all CP dollars at the SBC level. IMB has been bumped up a fraction of a percent. NAMB was allocated more after swallowing some smaller entities in a reorganization. ERLC has been given a bit more and the EC relinquished a fraction of a percent to IMB after the Great Commission Resurgence process.
Looks a lot like status quo to me. Does anyone anticipate any large changes in the Big Three? Since the two mission boards have the two major mission offerings, Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, any chance for significant change would have to come from the six seminaries. Does anyone anticipate that the seminaries will ever be allocated less than they have now? We have a track record on them, the Great Commission Resurgence, where they successfully defended their percentages.
One could argue that even fractions of percentages involve tens of millions of dollars and that such changes are anything but status quo, but I’m at the place where it looks like we can fiddle with fractions at the SBC level but that’s about it. Status quo.
Jimmy Draper, old CR lion, former SBC president, and former SBC entity CEO speaks of the CP needing to be “revised, restarted, reinvented or something” because of the decades long CP giving lethargy. Ronnie Floyd current SBC president raises all the usual questions about the split, the allocation formula, church giving, and individual giving. Both seem to be saying that we need to move away from the status quo.
But CP money, as Ronnie Floyd says, is church money and judging by their giving patterns, churches have looked at their mission giving and concluded that the CP is important but only about half as important as it was decades ago. Churches have changed their mission status quo, I suspect after concluding that the state convention and SBC allocation status quo is not likely to change.
I am one who thinks the CP, although heavily weighed down by the status quo, is irreplaceable. I like it. We need it. The SBC we have would be unrecognizable without it. If there is some new idea that would revise, restart, reinvent, or reinvigorate it…I’d like to see it. I just don’t see the CP status quo being overturned.
I note that Tim Lubinus, new head of the Baptist Convention of Iowa, has proposed a budget that instantly moves BCI to a true 50/50 split. The current split is something like 80/20 (don’t have the figures at hand) and the dollars involved are not as large as the legacy southern state conventions but the budget shift is significant.
State conventions can make such changes quickly but none of the larger state conventions have done so because there are powerful and entrenched interests that work against such changes.
Having just spent last Saturday in a meeting there, I can tell you that your information is accurate.
We are moving to an immediate and genuine 50-50 split. The proposal is still awaiting a vote from the Annual meeting, but it has passed at both the Admin and Exec levels without any opposition – in fact, with enthusiasm.
That is really encouraging to see that those in the convention are on board with the idea. That is a big time sacrifice from the churches of the BCI.
The main sacrifice has been personnel. Tough choices but some things were NAMB mandated and some were choices we made.
But it is a balanced budget with a 20% increase in church planting funds and it is a true 50-50 split (nothing taken out before the split is made. As of the new year, an Iowa church that gives to missions through the CP will know that 50% is moving on to be divided by the formula William mentioned above.
Once we had an Exec, four full-time state positions, 5 DOMs for 7 associations, several part-time positions, etc.
In our new structure we will have an Exec and three state staff, plus some contract workers, part-time.
Leaner, for sure. Our hope is that we can do more with less.
Dave
Montana is also smaller in personnel due to NAMB changes. It will be interesting to see what happens as a result. If we can do as much with less then that would be a great model for the old line money heavy states who could trim and still produce. Think of the dollars that could be put into planting etc. if the old states followed example. However, the question still is can we produce with less.
Dave
Being in a pioneer state also I heartily commend you folks for this action. It is my opinion that the newer more pioneer states should take the lead in this effort and ask the old line states to follow.
I believe that we in the pioneer areas are much less interested in being a power broker or a control factor than those in the old line areas. Hence we do not have that baggage hanging around our neck. It is the desire to control that keeps the old areas from doing the 50 split.
I particularly appreciate that the BCI decided not to create a “fake” 50/50 by creating some accounting categories that mask the fact that the state was keeping 50% plus promotion expenses of another 5 or 10 percent. While this is in a way approved by the SBC, it is mildly deceptive.
Here’s the question we all have to ask. Do the various CP allocation budgets not change because…
1. The system is genuinely rigged such that it cannot change.
2. The majority of people support an alternative set of priorities, but nobody is willing to do the work of mobilizing them to put their priorities into action, or…
3. Actually, my priorities for changing the CP budgets are not shared by most Southern Baptists.
If you are alleging that #1 is the case, then you have demonstrated that the system is flawed and the CP is a stacked deck in favor of the status quo. If the third option is the case, then the CP is working fine, and our situation is simply that we’ve found a good system the perfectly satisfies nobody but does represent a good cooperative agreement. The second possibility I plan to address in a subsequent post. I think it is the more likely case.
I think your three alternatives are all valid but do not exhaust or explain the CP sclerosis.
Chief among additional alternatives is the extreme ease with which churches can set their own CP priorities – giving more, less, or designating. No need to wait for my state convention to reach a 50/50 split, we will just prioritize in our budget to accomplish that. Boom! It’s done.
I don’t like the term “rigged” because it conveys something sinister and underhanded. The system is resistant to change because of more mundane, inherent difficulties, especially at the SBC level. The CP does favor the SQ, and probably should (it wouldn’t be prudent to change the allocation formula on a whim at the annual meeting).
The CP we have is the CP we have had. What happens if after almost a century There is sufficient change in society, churches, and practices that the CP split and allocation needs to change? Nothing much. We rock along as we always have.
During the halcyon days of double digit CP increases, states with thousands of SBC churches found new ways to spend the extra money in GA, or AL, or SC on more real estate, staffing, and projects. It is the nature of institutions to protect and expand their resources.
I have a few recommendations for CP changes of my own. While they would be DOA if offered formally, I’ll still offer them here.
Dr. Barber:
Option number 4:
We are not focusing on the CP too much anymore because we can afford to do “hands on” ministry locally, in North America, and throughout the world. We are beefing up our support for the IMB by giving to the LMCO and sending helpers to the field to assist IMB missionaries and/or NAMB initiatives using our own funds and/or our member’s funds.
Due to demographics, more and more churches [at least more and more $, because wealth is concentrated in fewer churches these days] are able to exercise option 4. And at least at the margin, they seem to be doing so.
I agree and see it as a mixed bag.
Are there any statistics about who attends the national convention based on employment: employed by national convention entity, state convention entity, local association, local church, not employed by any of the above.
My guess is that denominational employees are over represented by a large measure at the national convention verses pastors and lay persons because they are get to attend for free.
Thus nothing the national convention does can really be said to “represent” the views of the “average Southern Baptist”.
Wish we could vote on national and state convention issues without attending in person.
All state conventions are not created equal.
The new Southern Baptists of Texas Convention can afford the 45/55 split because of the absence of things like schools, orphanages, nursing homes, and other charitable causes. The same is true for a state like Iowa.
But it is unreasonable to expect the same from the so-called “Legacy” states like Georgia and Alabama. In this case, the word “legacy” does not so much mean “bloated bureaucracy” as it means “the states through which most of our CP funding originates.”
The underlying philosophy behind GCR, suggesting that our legacy states are hogging too many CP missions dollars, may very well be the worst example of “biting the hand that feeds you” ever seen in American denominational life.
May I suggest that the reason our churches are not actively supporting the CP is that our denominational leaders are squabbling a bit too much about how we divide the pie. This sends an uncertain message about the value of the CP itself. Oddly enough, the Cooperative Program only works if we all cooperate and give strongly to support the entirety of its ministries.
Instead of focusing like children over who gets the larger piece of pie, we need to unite, call Southern Baptists back into the kitchen, and bake a lot more pie. Then there will be enough for everyone. All our ministries will be supported at every level. State conventions will not be considered “bogeymen” simply because they have schools and orphanages to support—as if that were a *bad* thing! And we can all rediscover the meaning of the word, “cooperate.”
CP dollars, Rick, don’t originate in the state conventions but in churches. State conventions don’t “feed” the CP, nor CP funded entities.
If Alabama churches are satisfied with how their CP dollars are spent then we should see the CP holding steady in your state. Instead we see churches giving less. Why?
Your baking suggestion (larger pies) is the only CP advance plan that has been promoted for several decades. It hasn’t worked. Do you have another recipe.
William,
Sometimes giving goes down. It’s not necessarily because the people disagree with something as complex and poorly understood as the denominational funding formula.
The CP is actually holding fairly steady in Alabama, at least when adjusted for overall giving trends. My recipe is to actually get in the kitchen and try grandma’s recipe. It’s still very good, but you do have to put on the apron, preheat the oven and start mixing the ingredients.
It only stopped working when we got away from it.
William,
You asked, “If Alabama churches are satisfied with how their CP dollars are spent then we should see the CP holding steady in your state. Instead we see churches giving less. Why?”
I finally ran down the facts. In 2012, Alabama Baptists gave $39,514,208 through CP, while in 2013, we gave $40,103,880. We are not giving less, but more.
Rick, I know that the ABSC is pleased with even a slight increase of 1.5%. Your state is like others in that churches are giving much less as a percentage of their budgets to CP which reflects a declining support of state and national convention activities in favor of other things. We would all like to see at least a floor for CP in dollars and percentages. Maybe we’ve reached that.
If churches are significantly increasing their percentages in Alabama, a statistic that would be contra general SBC trends, I’d love to know that. Such would indicate your SC has successfully outlined a ministry plan that churches are willing to follow and increase their giving. I don’t see those figures readily available but they may be accessible somewhere.
Willian T
You say it is not working. Obviously correct. Observation: as the CP goes down, so does baptisms, attendance etc. Question: is there a common denominator?.
You ask “Why”? Resultant question. We don’t give (CP decline), We don’t witness (baptism decline). Is that which is wrong (the answer to your “Why”) simply the fact that we don’t care (about the lost)
Your dismissive words toward what Iowa did trivializes a fairly significant move. Obviously, we cannot match the dollars of bigger states, but neither are we just insignificant minnows swimming in the SBC sea.
We made a significant sacrifice – no, not in buildings, but in personnel. It is not as though we have lots of unspent money sitting around. This was a bold decision.
It may mean nothing to you, but it is fairly significant to us.
Dave,
Please do not misunderstand my remarks concerning Iowa as dismissive. I’m grateful for their sacrifice, just as I am grateful for the sacrifices Alabama has made in recent years to streamline and send more dollars to the field. In fact, Alabama was downsizing and prioritizing the Great Commission long before GCR came along.
To clarify, I do not consider Iowa’s actions to be insignificant in any way. I’m not really sure which words in my comment gave you the impression that I trivialized Iowa. That was certainly not my point at all.
My primary point was simply this—state conventions are not all the same. No single cookie cutter formula across the board is going to make sense for every state convention to implement. If we start saying, “Every state convention needs to go to 50/50 or they are not being cooperative,” I believe we are failing to appreciate the intrinsic differences between different *types* of state conventions—none of which are insignificant.
Well, Rick, every time you fall back on that “Legacy States” terminology, as if the older states have some sort of rank and privilege, and use terms like “bite the hand that feeds you,” which again gives the sense that some are givers and some are takers (true, in a sense, but only if you see church planting as somehow a drain on resources instead of a ministry) – it comes across as dismissive to me.
Thanks for letting me know what is offensive. When I use the term “legacy” I am simply referencing that the Alabama Baptist Convention is old—having begun in 1823, ten years before the church I pastor existed, and 22 years before the SBC existed. These older conventions have, over time, developed the kind of ministry infrastructure that requires significant funding.
I use the phrase “bite the hand that feeds you” not so much in reference to givers and takers, but as an indictment of those who consider such ministries to be “bloated bureaucracies.” If you are not one of the ones dismissive of older state conventions and their ministries, then I am not talking about you.
Perhaps I am being dismissive of the dismissers, but I am mostly just trying to say, “Hey, state conventions are different animals, depending on a variety of factors. Their funding formulas may not all look the same, and that’s okay.”
I have long used “legacy” to describe the southern states that have long established institutional obligations and that are heavily loaded with constituencies that protect their budget allocations. Maybe I should embrace the punishing politics, blood sport almost, of challenging these.
One can see some perspective in Rick’s and my references to the legacy states. He says, “These older conventions have, over time, developed the kind of ministry infrastructure that requires significant funding.”
I would gently say that some of this infrastructure has entrenched constituencies that protect their funding stream long past their maximum effectiveness in ministry.
I guess I’m thinking of the term as its used in colleges – “legacy” students have special rights and privileges.
Anyway, I understand that there is a difference in size between the BCI and Alabama, GA, or Fla conventions. Most Southern associations are bigger than the BCI.
But this was an act of sacrifice – we could fund another staff person or two with the money that will be going to the CP instead of being kept in Iowa.
Dave, as a pastor in one of those “takers” conventions I’d like to say: investing in California is good for the Kingdom of God–and for other conventions as well.
What we do in California (as with a large state like Texas) will most certainly trickle down to the rest of you sooner or later. Focus on Alabama if you will, but Alabama ain’t going cause you the kind of problems California will. We are a “legacy” state, and the legacy we leave hasn’t been all that good for the nation.
The CP will only work if there are no “legacy” conventions, but only “legacy” partners in One Convention.
Gotta be honest guys, a discussion of “legacy states” and “taker states” does not advance the discussion. There is one kingdom of which we all are a part.
Virginia is a “legacy state” and the Southern Bapist Conservatives of Va (SBCV) is a true 51/49 and rising state. If I remember correctly the goal is 55/45 by 2020…might be wrong on that though.
I have asked several of our state reps if any money is kept before the split and the answer has been the same every time… “No. The SBCV only deducts CP promotion before the split.” I personally think that is fair – that the CP pay for its own promotion so to speak.
I personally have always lived and ministered in “legacy conventions” and I will say the SBCV is the most supportive of the CP and also the most beneficial to churches than any convention I have seen.
I do think that one reason we see churches cutting back to the CP is that people see money that (they thought was) going to “the best and largest missionary sending strategy in the world” being siphoned off to struggling colleges and costly orphanages (sorry Volfan) both of which would probably be better run privately without the meddling and drama that comes with state conventions….and they do not like it.
I do realize that the SBCV is not the “legacy convention” in VA though…that convention boasts like an 80/20 split….but alas it favors them, the CBF and the BWA over the SBC.
Yep, when it is all said and done….the SBC gets about 20% of the CP money collected.
So legacy conventions are not always good things.
I can’t find SBCV budget past 2012 but they do not offer a “true” split anywhere near 50/50. In 2012 the split was about 44% SBC, 56% SBCV. The explanation is in the footnotes. While it is standard for stares to do their accounting this way, it is misleading.
Maybe they have a different accounting presentation currently. If you have a link, please let me know.
Almost all state conventions will tell you that they only keep CP promotion expenses before the split. Check SBCV’s explanation for this in their 2012 footnotes.
The annual homecoming (meeting) for this year is in November…but I have a meeting soon with the financial officer concerning other matters and I will find out for sure from the horses mouth.
I will let you know.
I think I have some more current data as well.
Tarheel
I think your last paragraph is spot on. However, I would add that people have gotten wind of high salaries, large travel accounts, etc. for denominational types. Add to that the “golden parachutes” given to get rid of a denomination agency head. And then there is high administrative expenditures including new high end automobiles for staff. All of this is not advertised in the LM or AA offerings. On the cover of the CD, DVD or whatever is always the picture of a poor missionary in the back country. In the information age when folks realized those who were pictured were getting less while high and mid level agency folks were getting much more, well…..
One of my pastors just last month said “I bet the Pres of Namb gets close to 100,000 dollars a year”. I didn’t have the heart to respond.
Kevin Ezell doggone well better get more than $100k per year or he is seriously underpaid. It’s a large org with a huge staff and I budget.
Thank you, William. I do not make anywhere close to $100,000. I am, however, well taken care of by the church I pastor.
Why some on here feel the need to begrudge our agency heads for making salaries in line with what someone leading a very large organization typically makes is beyond me. If they want their people to be generous to them, why do they not want to be generous to our agency heads?
Kevin Ezell may make $250,000 and then turn around and give $150,000 of it to his local church. I have no clue what he makes or what he gives, but I can’t understand for the life of me the jealous spirit that marks many SBC pastors.
Let me be clear that I am not dogging D.L. He did not say that he thought $100,000 is too much. I am really just saying that anyone who thinks the president of one of our entities should make less than that is out of touch with reality.
Yep, Rev. Blosser!
William,
Okay, I’ve looked at the report and the footnotes.
I see where you get the 44% comment… However I disagree with you that it’s dishonest.
You seem to be objecting to the state deducting the amount that they are responsible for using to publicize the cooperative program. It is explained in the footnotes that the great commission resurgence that was voted on and approved by the messengers at the convention in Arizona several years ago allows them to do that. As I’m sure you’re aware the respnsibilty of publicizing the cooperative program has been shifted to the states….with the executive committee reimbursing them. Those are Southern Baptist convention CP expenses there for that money should be counted as money goes to the coopertive program. In 2012 the budget year that you are referring to….The SBCV gave 50.75% of undesignated receipts to the cooperative program. Today the percentage is higher. We have committed to raise it .25% every year as money is available.
When you referred to a “true” split do you mean that the state convention “eats” the cooperative program promotion costs?
Does Texas do that?
Tarheel, I didn’t say it was “dishonest.” I said it was “misleading.” You were unaware and accepted your contact’s explanation of “CP promotion”. Did you read all the footnotes to see exactly what they do with the almost $600k in this category?
This is standard for states…and it is highly misleading. It allows leaders to report a split more favorable that it actually is.
I asked Tim Lubinus, Dave’s BCI CEO about the 50/50 split he proposed in the upcoming budget. He said it was a “true” 50/50 split, just like you said your 49/51 was a “true” split. Yours turns out to be 54/46.
I hate this accounting stuff. It should be ended. Let the state say “we keep 56% of every CP dollar in this state because…” and then tell how it is used.
I don’t know that there is a substantial difference between “misleading” and “dishonest” when it comes to financial matters.
CP promotion is CP money and it’s going to benefit the CP because it’s money this going to be spent either on the national level or the state level – so either way.. It is a 51/49 split anyway you look at. The state convention only keeps 49% of the cooperative program money given to it by the churches…..for its own use.
It’s clearly explained in the footnotes in English not accountant ease – so I see no “misleading” or “Dishonesty”
Tarheel, “misleading” may be morally neutral. “Dishonest” is not. I chose my words carefully.
Did you look at where the $600k is spent? Do so and then get back to me. I’d still like to see a more current budget, with footnotes.
Dave
You Bet!
The SBTC supports schools and orphanages, and does it all quite nicely on 45% of the CP gifts in our convention.
I’m in favor of other state conventions supporting as many ministries as they can afford in a reasonable set of funding priorities and as will adopt the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 and conduct all of their ministries in agreement with it.
Bart,
My remarks were not intended to slight SBCT at all, but merely to point out that a brand new state convention such as SBCT does not have nearly as many long standing ministries as the so-called legacy state conventions. It’s like comparing apples and oranges, at least to a degree, it seems to me.
Rick
A lot of the leanness in the pioneer areas like mine is in more that just staff, buildings and long sanding ministries. It is in the life style of State staff and Pastors alike. I know that very few pastors anywhere get rich. I understand that. However, a large percentage of our pastors are living below the poverty level. State staff and those who do have some travel use a lot of Motel 6 and McDonalds. Out state staff drive automobiles with over 175,000 miles. During convention when held in Billings both of our spare bedrooms are used by attending pastors. Billings based pastors also host attendees. My point: There is a lot of dollars that could go to the field if we look for them
Being in Montana news gets to us a little late. Most denominational “gossip” never get to us. It seems to me that when I hear about the CP I am hearing we are going down, churches giving less per cent, or how to divide it. In the past it seems that when I heard of the CP it was what the recipients were doing and were accomplishing in their areas of ministry. Question, Is that because of the circumstances that i out lined at the outset, or is that your experience.
Thanks for leaving FL out of the discussion. 🙂
You can put it in. Part of the problem in discussing the CP is that there are a few dozen sub discussions.
While we discuss ‘percentages’ of gifts, one of the unmentioned truths about the CP is that because of our system in the past (CP), we have accumulated reserves in our mission’s organizations which would carry us through years of troubling times. Whereas CP may not be perfect and may not please us with the percentage of dollars going to where we personally want it to go, more MONEY, actual dollars, have been given to mission than almost any other denomination.
The States are not the enemy of missions, the mission boards, or getting more money to fund mission endeavors. While I am a little known person and know very few people, it is my privilege to call 5 State Execs ‘friend’ and none of these men would do anything to thwart missions. In fact, to the man it is just the opposite. These men are some of the most mission-minded leaders in our convention. They live with the mandate of keeping their entity focused on the spread of the gospel. Candidly, they do a really good job of this.
William you are right, that CP dollars don’t originate in the states but in the local churches. That said, it is indeed the state who has been available to the church to send a staff person (at no charge to the church) to educate people about CP. In one church that I served, at my request, the state convention sent one of her state missionaries to talk with our congregation about CP. He came as a help to our congregation and over the next year our congregation responded by giving $30K more to CP. This might not have happened without congregational understanding of the width, depth, and breath, of CP missions that only a State Missionary can offer. I believe this is why my heart hurts at the belief of needing to radically change what has worked to accomplish everything from International Missions to Seminary Education. In my heart and mind – all that we do through CP is a mission. We have the best (& largest) mission corp, we boast the best Seminaries, we have an outstanding voice being heard in our nation’s capital (ERLC), and until recently we have had strong state conventions who were fertilizing and watering local congregations to continue giving. Don’t misunderstand my words about ‘strong state conventions’. We still have strong leaders there, but by in large, the states have been cut back so deeply that ONE STATE MISSIONARY is having to accept, perform, and oversee the responsibility which has been covered by TWO OR THREE STATE MISSIONARIES in days past. The result is, many of our younger leaders (missionaries) have opted to leave this needed work of influencing many churches and pastors – to return to the pastorates.
One of the things said to my friend, Dr. Rick Patrick, was told to ‘find another recipe because the pie is not getting bigger’ and while you are right at the present time, it seems to this preacher (and perhaps not anyone else) that part of the issue is that for the first time, the CP concept is under ‘constant attack’. I know that is a strong word, but I believe it fits. Were I a young pastor and hearing the ongoing rhetoric about CP, I would likely be cautious in my support because I wouldn’t know any better. We give 10% and I am committed to that level.
In the midst of these debates (attacks), instead of continuing to receive the slice of the pie which has been worked out in the crucible of time and effort, we want to redivide the pie to get our ‘focus’ a larger piece of the smaller pie because we think we know better. Perhaps we do, but just perhaps we don’t.
I know my words will not be received well, but this is still my heart. You will not recognize my name because I am one of the nameless, because I rarely engage in this online talk. Again, I hold nothing against those who ‘ministry’ seems to be blogging, it just that my time doesn’t permit it.
Please know that I harbor no ill-feelings toward William or anyone else in this debate. Having watched this issue, my heart hurts because I deeply believe that if we continue on this course of action, the connection point of Southern Baptists, the CP, will ultimately be dissolved. This will take us back to societal giving and the Mission of Christ will be weakened, if not thwarted.
Personally, with all its warts and weaknesses, the CP has been a gift from God to get ‘real dollars’ to missions around the world and at home and I’m deeply concerned about the future.
One last thought; In Acts 2 we are told that the believers sold their possessions and distributed the proceeds as any had a need. We all know this story. We also know that their desire was in the right place, but there is no record that GOD TOLD THEM to do this. Additionally, it seems that years later they found themselves in dire straights because they had sold off all their assets. I pray that the weakening of our State Convention through asking them to maintain or do more with less – is not us selling off our assets. Grace to you all.
Jerry, state conventions have been “cut back” by whom? By the churches within that state. When I challenge Rick Patrick (he is, presumably, my friend too) to find another CP increase recipe, I do so as a CP supporter. His ‘bake a bigger pie’ idea hasn’t worked for decades. Maybe there’s another idea that will work.
William,
I am friends to all on this stream. “Bake more pie” hasn’t worked because we have not heard Platt, Floyd, Greear, Stetzer, et al, shout TEN PERCENT CP until Southern Baptists know it and love it like fried chicken.
It worked when we tried it. It stopped working when we stopped trying it.
You can yell at the percentages…it doesn’t make them go up. We tried that too (yelling plus a heavy load of shaming)…didn’t work.
Gentlemen
History is the critical factor in this discussion. Look back to when Southern Baptist celebrated their distinctiveness. We were proud and boasted of our distinction especially the way we did missions (CP). During that time there were many independent type pastors, but the leadership were distinctively Baptist in polity.
As we lost that distinctiveness and the pride that accompanied it more pastors followed the independent model of dong missions. Direct support, mission trips etc. When those pastor became leaders, movers and shakers etc., they brought that mentality with them. Example Charles Stanley elected president while giving 1% more or less to CP. As this became acceptable and even popular folks followed suit.
When folks started mission trips, direct support, etc. it was not new dollars it was what was once CP dollars.
It is the same principle as a special financial drive in a church, many folks simply redirect their tithe.
Add to that the fact that in times past high CP giving gave ego ridded pastors recognition. When that ceased so did their CP giving. Recognition now is church planting. Now that pastor uses CP dollars to start churches.
Whether this is good or bad each will decide. However this is a big factor in the decline of the CP
DL,
“When folks started mission trips, direct support, etc. it was not new dollars it was what was once CP dollars.”
Not our church, however I realize some do that.
I also realize that, while should be pretty clear to everyone, that I support the co-op program, I will state that sadly many churches and many people within churches feel that once they’ve given their cooperative program dollars that’s all the missions they need to do they don’t do any other missions they don’t participate in the other missions because they give to the Coopertive program I don’t think this is the intent either and I don’t think it’s right.
Tarheel
I have great respect for you and your church in not using CP funds for direct mission. That speaks well of your leadership and people. Obviously I spoke too generically in what I said, but I have talked to too many of my pastors who simply shuffle the same dollars around.
You are exactly spot on regarding CP giving is not the end of our mission responsibility. When a church is missionally (sp?) healthy as I sense yours is they will do both.
That is one (tho not the only) regret I have as a Pastor. Every church I pastored gave at least 16% to the CP. One church we led to give 26%. However I did not lead my people to do direct hands on missions and that as I say is a regret.
D.L., I think part of the problem with what you are saying is that CP dollars do not exist until they are given to the CP. The church I pastor supports the CP to the tune of 10% of undesignated receipts. I am a CP advocate. However, we have to stop talking as if the SBC or any other agency is entitled to the money given to God’s church.
I don’t think we are going to increase the CP by demanding a certain percentage.
Most of those churches that aren’t giving high percentages labor under the impression that they can do more and better keeping the money under their own control than they can do by giving the money to mission through the CP.
So, we have to do two things.
1) We have to DO MORE with our IMB and NAMB (and other) missions dollars than any church, even the mega-megachurches can do on their own.
2) We have to CONVINCE those churches that we are doing more together than they can do separately.
Some may still want to keep local control over their missions money. You can’t fix selfish.
My point is that we have to make sure that our product (CP and related ministries) is so effective, so well-tuned, so stream-lined, so efficient that people WANT to give thru the CP.
I think the communication problem is this:
While through IMB/NAMB we are supporting somewhere between 8000-10000 missionaries, it has almost become faceless. There are so many, and a decent amount of work is in “secured” areas anyway, that we don’t know many missionaries well. The best that many churches can get is a stateside positioned worker–not a missionary, but an IMB employee who lives in the US, works in the US, and travels and speaks on behalf of the IMB–to put a human face on where the CP money is going.
Put up against either sending our own missionary, or supporting a missionary that acts accountable to the local church, and it’s easy to see why my congregation members want to cut the CP % in half and put it on a single missionary.
The argument is that by giving through CP we do a lot more, though we have just a few dollars in any one thing. That argument has already failed in larger churches–it’s why they cut CP and put bigger funds into one or two major projects. I see it beginning to fail in smaller churches now.
The appeal isn’t there–the people who put the dollars in the plate want to feel connected to where they go. They want to feel like there is a responsiveness to them, and they don’t feel that with many SBC issues. I’d suggest that many people don’t feel their state is responsive to them–especially here in the deep South (or “legacy” territory). That I find my state responsive to me doesn’t translate to my church members thinking it is–the main time they’ve seen help from the state is when they were pastorless.
I am not certain where the solution lies. Ideally, yes, more pie is the answer. But we’re counting calories and looking for the freshest ingredients these days. A smaller, more effective, fresher-tasting pie may be just what we need.
Does that make sense? The people in churches that vote on budgets, that set CP % amounts aren’t just distrustful of their state or of the SBC, it’s an overall distance problem. They don’t know how well the money is truly being used. So they don’t want more going into the system. And there is no real push to change what’s done at the state/national split level because there’s not a sense that Nashville spends it any better than Little Rock.
It comes back to transparency that’s not there from the moment the check leaves the treasurer–the money “goes to missions” but the folks that put it in the plate don’t know how well it’s used. They have seen stories of it being wasted, and rarely have they seen a full audit of it.
And when you consider that every month, many church members (you mega-guys excluded) are used to seeing a line-by-line accounting of every penny, being told “you can’t know how much is spent on administration” doesn’t play well. The result is that we have a few givers who designated their offering to avoid it being counted toward CP%–and others who advocate, every year, to slice our giving through CP at least in half.
It’s coming. As more leadership in churches is taken on by the following generation that isn’t as deeply in love with the CP, it’s going to pick up.
Doug:
This really puts a human face on the mechanism that is causing the CP to be in limbo.
This is the most lucid description, “from the bottom up”, of the situation with the CP that I’ve ever read.
We had a blog a week or so ago here from a professional fundraiser. He was a guy that setup capital campaigns for churches. He would work through human contacts who were known to and respected by those who were being recruited to give. These guys would orchestrate a full court press to setup opportunities with donors to make a pitch to explicitly ask for money.
By contrast the CP is using a remote model. Somehow, intellectually I guess, we are supposed to learn by osmosis that the CP is doing something — somewhere that we should support even though we don’t have any organic connection to it.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Roger
William – Man listen – I’m not mad with anyone and if my remarks come across caustic, I am deeply and truly sorry because God knows my at – I am more sad about the state, status, or condition of the SBC & CP than I could even say.
You did ask, “Who cut the states back?” The States have done it through their own budgeting process. State leaders are making attempts to comply with SBC actions. Many states have gone through hiring freezes. Every position which comes open is now being evaluated as to whether another person could possibly pick up the responsibilities (normally these are divided between several staff people, unless it is a position which is deemed critical).
You and I do find common ground at this point: CP needs reinvigorating…..there is too much at stake to loss this vehicle for promoting the gospel. Grace to you.
Jerry, I haven’t presumed you were mad at anyone.
I think the financials show that the state conventions have had to cut back because the churches are giving less, not because NAMB stopped their kickbacks to the states. State conventions are lowering the portions of CP money that they keep, mostly in slow, small fractions of percentages.
All those job cutbacks? Far more as a result of CP gifts within the state declining than because they are trying to comply with any SBC action.
Stares still keep 62 cents of every CP dollar, down a penny or two from earlier.
William T
Absolutely correct, states cut because giving was down. I would add to this however, that may not be all bad. It has been my observation that in three of the four state conventions in which i have served there has been a tremendous amount of waste and a personnel overload. I doubt we will see less accomplished because of less workers.
Jerry
You are correct. Thank you for a word of balance. There are many at the state level who love missions and the work of missionaries. Thank you for you comment which will cause men like me to become a little less critical by stopping and taking a deep breath. Others must speak for themselves. As for me I need to stop and breath and reflect more than I do.
I become verbal at time because I love the CP so much. It put food on my table for 20 years. It is the best strategy in the history of Christendom for spreading the gospel. When I see it go down I become at times critical and judgmental. This helps no one. Again thank for a balance in you comment.
I read this passing comment in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger about the new financial plan.
“Also the board approved the CP objective be distributed in three tiers, 40 percent to the Southern Baptist Convention, 45 percent to the BGCO and 15 percent to BGCO affiliates (Oklahoma Baptist University, Oklahoma Baptist Homes for Children, Baptist Village Communities and the Baptist Foundation).
The financial plan, which will be published online at http://www.bgco.org, will be discussed at the 2014 Annual Meeting at Oklahoma City, Quail Springs on Nov. 10-11″
Without a lot of research I’m pretty sure thats a change for OK. I know they have held out money from reporting for “Shared Expenses”.
This is a change from the present, based on what I see on the BGCO website. It looks like BGCO has an BGCO/SBC split of 54/46 when in fact it is 60/40. The accounting uses a “shared” category to disguise the fact that 60 cents on every CP dollar stays in OK. While this technique is standard among the states, its effect is to cause someone not familiar with such things to conclude that BGCO keeps less of each CP dollar.
If a state wants to keep 60% or 70% or whatever, just do it and stop with the accounting presentation. It doesn’t help the state convention’s case to do otherwise.
From what you give above, none of the dollars will change, just the accounting presentation. BGCO is still a legacy state that keeps 60 cents on the CP dollar.
SBC Plodder: … The Cooperative Program, has become an inherently status quo system with little chance of accommodating major changes.
Bart: 1. The system is genuinely rigged such that it cannot change. 2. The majority of people support an alternative set of priorities, but nobody is willing to do the work of mobilizing them to put their priorities into action[.]
Norm: I agree with William and Bart’s 1 and 2, but like William, I would not use the word ‘genuinely rigged’ or ‘cannot’ as an alternative position, and would substitute’ designed’ and ‘is very difficult to’, respectively, to the alternative. Also , I would add ‘likely’ before ‘little’ to William’s assertion.
A test of status quo would be to start talking about halting the pass through provision and encourage churches to give to the CP accounts (without designation) set up at the state and national level. Such a strategy would likely force the issue and sides would form immediately. Both states and national would fear receiving less than they presently receive, thus: Question = 1 and Response = n+1; that is, NO.
Assuming the system gets past ‘NO’, changing a legacy issues goes deep into the cultural identity of SBC and such likely will take at least a generation to change in which the change will be valued and seen as a ‘should/ought/must’, and it also likely will require committed action to long term discussions with a greater emphasis on non-SBC executive leadership and ‘usual’ suspects’ than is typically the case in strategic deliberations. Certainly want to include those that will have a greater tenured investment in the potential changes. Note that eliminating the pass through provision will require plans for integrating the two entities, otherwise the two may develop in different directions.
Here’s something that might be missed in this and other similar discussions: everyone here is a CP supporter. I am. Bart is. All the commenters that I have read are. Some are enthusiastic cheerleaders. Some are sober realists. All are supporters.
What I have noticed over the years is that when a person raises questions about the CP or offers some criticism of various aspects of the CP, they might get ready to be labeled a non-supporter.
The CP is a declining brand in SBC life with the average church percentages trending relentlessly downward. Maybe, just maybe, we have hit the floor and stopped the decline. The Executive Committee now receives more money from the state conventions in designated funds than in CP funds. If there are ways to reverse these, I’m wide open to hearing them. Nonetheless, the CP is a mammoth funding engine and I support it.
I’ll affirm that just in case anyone reading thinks I’m unclear in my own mind about that: William and I both support the CP.
William T
Maybe we have hit bottom as you say. I hope so. However, I think we have missed an importent aspect of CP decline. Yes there is controversy and dispute over allocations. Yes to everything else we have said as to why it is in decline. However, a major factor for the decline is not what we have said. The CP is a Baptist distinctive. Nothing else like it. A major reason for the decline in CP is that we are losing our Baptist distinctive. No longer do we see the name Baptist on our churches. We have “LifeWay” not Baptist SSB. SBC attendance is s penitence of what it once was, etc, etc,etc. I am not sure that all of these things are bad, but the fact is we are less distinctively Baptist than we one were, hence the CP is not of as much concern as it once was. It is hard to lose one distinctive but keep another. It is a package deal.
I have noticed down through the years that IMB and NAMB have said send money and we will send missionaries. I have heard we need more so send more. For me this is somewhat ambiguous. I see no success or failure lines. I hear at times CP is up with the idea that that is success. But then I ask is the goal simply more dollars? Of course I know that dollars is not the goal. However I m not sure I know what the goal is. What is success? Are we achieving?
I know I am rambling but my point is this. People do not know when to rejoice as it relates to CP and missionaries, because we do not know the goals. How much should I give to accomplish what? Perhaps it would be to our advantage to put a challenge before the people, not in terms of % giving but it terms of missionaries needed. If IMB and NAMB would say something like “in the next 5 years we want to put blank number of new missionaries in blank number of countries and it will require blank amount of new dollars to accomplish”, I think folks would respond and they would increase their CP giving. Then set new goals and on and on.
As it is now our goal is ambiguous. “Reach the world” does not translate into something tangible. The old joke, “we have been paying on the CP for years, when will e get it paid off”, my not be a joke.
The same goes for seminaries. Rather than we need more money, share the goal.
“”” If IMB and NAMB would say something like “in the next 5 years we want to put blank number of new missionaries in blank number of countries and it will require blank amount of new dollars to accomplish”,”””
I agree this is a good approach. I also think this has been communicated by the Boards regularly, though perhaps not in the same language.
Definitely, I have heard the message: “more money means more missionaries.” I think that has been a staple in Board communications. Is it true? I am sure the records could show that with the same amount of giving (CP basically not even keeping up with inflation) we have not increased our force significantly. I’ll let the numbers guys take on that challenge.
I do believe that “money=missions” (or more correctly, money approximates missions). Money isn’t the only ingredient to be sure, but it is a fundamental one.
Currently, my head is all over the map on what to do in regard to the CP. Certainly, Annie and Lottie get my support. After that: the CP sacred cows are looking pretty delicious!
There’s a problem with putting a requirement/goal of $Xm dollars to put significant numbers of additional people on the field.
If the dollar amount is, say, $100m for IMB then the CP will have to increase by roughly a half billion. That’s a goal of doubling the CP.
I suppose IMB has looked at these numbers and concluded that they should explore alternative funding methods.
States, of course, would love it, since they would suck up most of the additional money given to put the additional people on foreign fields. Makes no sense at all.
Jack
You have made some valid observations that are spot on. Yes we have heard “more money equals more Missionaries”. However that is a little generic. What I am saying is set tangible goals. Say something like we want to put blank new missionaries in blank foreign countries by the year blank. It will take blank new dollars to make this happen. That is tangible…something I can wrap my head around. I can then look at the size of my church and then say I will need to increase blank to do my share.
Back in the day the Bold Mission Thrust came pretty close to this.
I agree that tangible goals are a good thing.
However they do expose the “loose linkage” between CP giving and putting foreign missionaries on the field.
For every dollar that any given church gives to the CP only about 19 cents winds up at the IMB.
The math is this:
A = $1 from church
B = 38 cents (on average across all state conventions) passed through to Nashville
C = half of B = .19 cents forwarded by Nashville to IMB in Richmond. Actually the “half” amount is 50.41%
So here is the pitch. We at IMB have a target to raise $100,000,000.00 to put X number of new missionaries on the field. We will send them to countries A, B, C, to “penetrate lostness” because these are places where there are unreached people groups that we are going to focus on.”
Left unstated is this, “For every $5 you give to the CP $1 will go to the IMB”.
So for $100,000,000 to flow to the IMB from CP giving, then CP giving has to increase to $500,000,000 as William Thornton says.
Right now about 55% of all IMB revenue comes from the Lottie Moon offering, and about 33% comes from the CP. About 11% comes from miscellaneous sources.
I don’t see how if the IMB makes a more focused case for more funding that this is going to drive increased CP giving. If anything, it might stoke up LMCO giving.
For year 2013 here is the breakout of IMB funding by source:
CP = $92.5 million, [from a total CP giving from churches of $482.2 million]
LMCO = $154.1 million
Other = $30.5 million
Sources for this info is press releases and PDF’s on websites of Exec Committee and IMB.