For those with a surfeit of election year political stuff, I humbly offer some calming and pacifying (some may say ‘mind numbing’) information on our beloved Cooperative Program. Watch out for the high weeds, though.
_____________
The money collected under our venerable Cooperative Program, now in its tenth decade, is divided into two parts: the first part is the money kept by the state conventions, the second part is forwarded to the SBC Executive Committee, most of which is divided among the mission boards and seminaries.
Of interest to those who pay attention is the “split”; how much stays in each state and how much gets to SBC seminaries and mission boards. A few data points on this:
- Historically, state conventions keep most of the money. There has never been a year that state conventions divided the money equally or Have ban anywhere in the neighborhood of a 50/50 split. In nine decades of CP collections only twice (1949-50, 1950-51) have state conventions kept less than 60%
- The most recent data show that of every CP dollar, the state conventions kept 61.25% and the SBC received 38.75%.
- In the past half century the percentage kept by state convention has ranged between 61.29 and 66.56.
- Since the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report was adopted by the SBC in 2010 and called for a “return to the historic ideal of a 50/50 Cooperative Program distribution between the state conventions and the SBC”, the state conventions have kept between 61.25% and 62.20% of CP dollars.
- The most recent statistical year, 2014-2015 showed states reducing their percentage about a full point to 61.25%
- The Florida state convention made a drastic change that put their split at 49/51 making them the only legacy state forwarding a majority of CP dollars to SBC causes.
- Southern Baptists of Texas, the conservative state body in Texas, has been at 45/55 for a few years.
- Two smaller state conventions, Iowa and Nevada, are at 50/50.
For those who believe Southern Baptists are better served when the state conventions keep less money and forward more to the mission boards and seminaries, the call for a 50/50 split was a welcome one. Many of the states have responded with small steps in that direction. Some have responded with giant steps.
Over 90% of CP revenue comes from 16 legacy, southern states. In these, except for Florida and the upstart state conventions in Texas and Virginia, progress towards 50/50 has been slow but, to some, significant.
- My state, Georgia, is moving to a 58/42 split, a move made much easier as a result of a $25 million gift to the convention to retire the mortgage on the headquarters building. It is unclear how much progress will be made to move from 58/42 to 50/50.
- The Alabama convention, which gives the largest amount in CP revenues to SBC causes, is at 55/45.
- The Tennessee convention, third largest CP giver, is at about 57/43.
- The Louisiana and Mississippi conventions have the least favorable splits among the legacy states (not counting the more moderate conventions in Texas and Virginia) at about 63/37.
I think the recent trend in state conventions relative to the CP split is healthy but I’m not optimistic that we will get anywhere near 50/50 in my lifetime.
I would ask my colleagues what they feel is the ideal state/SBC split of CP dollars in your state.
I am 100% opposed to the 50/50 push! If we got rid of wasteful and worthless SBC entities like the ERLC and NAMB there would be PLENTY of money for IMB support. Most states need 60% to do what they are SUPPOSED to do to support the local church, including Church Planting and Disaster Relief, which NAMB has effectively taken over in recent years. The SBC has become a bloated and wasteful bureaucracy more dedicated to six fig salaries, bad-mouthing and ridiculing small churches, empowering mega-churches and enriching their mega$$$ pastors by pushing programs via NAMB and Lifeway based on their latest church growth book. NAMB ‘s Pres Ezell says NAMB is all about pastors. But what NAMB is really all about is pastors over 50 getting pushed out of the ministry and declining churches giving NAMB their keys so NAMB can ‘Plant’ new super-hip Calvinist churches big on hype and marketing instead of theology or evangelism led by their easier to control young Cal seminary grads. The ERLC does not represent the views of Southern Baptists in the pew. Their leaders imply Hillary would be a better choice than Trump when they should not be in the business of TELLING SBC how to vote or what issues to care about. Their leaders are aloof elitists.
The SBC sadly has become like the Democrat party. They say they are there for the small church and for their pastors. But what they are REALLY all about is centralizing power and control, raising ‘taxes’, telling the little guy what to do and how to think while enriching themselves and their ministry pals. We need a revolution within the SBC to regain LOCAL control or OUR denomination and OUR entities! …Perhaps a ‘sweet tea’ party is in order to get the attention of our leaders. There IS unrest in the ranks!! SBC leaders would be wise to take note and listen before the rebellions begins in earnest! We want our denomination back! And, just like with the inerrancy fight, we WILL fight to get it back if we have to.
Wow, wow, wow!
Breathe, dude.
Brain matter is supposed to stay inside your head – the way you’re going an explosion is impending!
Just trying to share a little reality out there….
I don’t know where you live or who all you are speaking of…
But, I live “out there” everyday. I Talk with multiple fellow pastors regularly – meet ones I’ve never met before on a weekly basis – and I don’t hear these kinds of things – ever!
I’ve even asked groups of pastors questions regarding some of the things you’ve mentioned and still – I find they’re vastly more interested in shepherding their flocks and expanding the kingdom of God.
Maybe you should expand your horizons.
I’m not sure you want a discussion but if you want to bring a little reality to your comments, and every SBCer ought to express their opinion of CP stuff, here’s a bit of reality:
1. ERLC: Gets about six cents of every CP dollar. I recognize that some SBCers think that is too much (adds up to over $3 million).
2. States need 60% of every CP dollar: Well, they are keeping that, on average but the largest CP giving states (AL, GA, TN) are already under 60% and seem to be managing well. States should justify the ministries, not the percentage.
3. NAMB: Is about the only success story going right now for Southern Baptists. Apparently, SBC churches have some confidence in NAMB because in a year that saw a heavy push to give more to IMB, NAMB received their second highest Annie Armstrong offering.
4. Disaster relief: This is always trotted out as an important state function (NAMB is heavily involved as well but the states and associations do most of the heavy lifting); however, it consumes a tiny amount of state convention money. If states keep $250 million in CP receipts instead of $300 million, they will have plenty enough to fund disaster relief.
I’m getting a whiff of, er, anti-calvinism in your comment…but no problem. You are free to make any motion to adjust CP percentages at state or SBC level.
If the ERLC gets $.06 (6% of CP dollars?!) THAT is a significant amount of money that could be better used in international missions. Who does the ERLC speak for? Certainly not the SBC person in the pew!
I am personally involved in DR. When the NAMB trailers roll in eyes roll as well because everyone in charge knows everything will now change.
State Conventions SHOULD be where Church planting is managed and empowered. States know their states far better than NAMB does. Why should NAMB be ordained to pick Church Planting winners and losers? I live in MO. So NAMB tells us that STL needs new churches but Little Rock or San Francisco does not. Really?! Anybody with a Cal pulse in STL can get NAMB $$ to start a church in STL; but not in Cape, Joplin or Columbia.
Local control is better than centralized control. SBC entities are not accountable to the churches. The closer organizations are to the folks they serve the more accountable they are.
I tried to ask questions at the SBC in STL this year. The one for the ERLC I did not ask because time ran out. I turned my question in to the ERLC table asking for a response. NOTHING! I asked a question of Ezell which he sidestepped. Further contacts with NAMB AND my MO NAMB Trustee have never been answered. I cannot even get an audience to ask a question!
The SBC is too big for its britches. It is time we turned back to our main mission, international missions, and trust our churches to do the work of the Lord empowered primarily by local Associations and State Conventions. When it comes to the national SBC structure, less is more!
Ummm, I misplaced a decimal. As Rick Perry would say, “oops.” ERLC gets about six tenths of a cent of every CP dollar, 1.65% of the SBC allocation which is for about 40% of CP receipts.
If a state convention shows skill at planting churches, then I would have no problem with their keeping funds to do so. Problem is, the record is not very strong. In my state, one association alone puts more money into church planting than the state convention. The legacy states have an accumulation of older ministries that have first claim on the dollars.
Local control is a bit of a chimera. If anything is true about the SBC at every level it is that there is a networked system where money flows and not always as a result of success, or of outcomes. Until NAMB is shown to be failing in planting churches, I’ll trust them to engage the system of church planting.
Here’s the simple solution for you and every other SBCer who wants to “get back to our main mission, international missions”: give less to the CP and more to Lottie Moon. That’s what thousands of churches are doing. Simple math should convince you that your CP dollar, where about 20 cents goes to IMB, might be better spent where 100 cents goes to IMB, Lottie Moon.
You’ve got a lot of complaints but I give you credit for being better informed than most on this.
We are at about 5% for CP percentage, a reasonable level, IMO. States are at about 61% of a CP dollar, at least 11 points too high. If churches are convinced that their state should keep 60-70% or higher, then they will make their autonomous decision to give to that. Problem is, when churches have been making their opportunity cost decisions for scarce mission dollars, they have been demonstrating that state conventions are not the priority they used to be. It’s up to the states to convince otherwise. The Florida convention would have my attention based on their action. Not so much elsewhere.
Why should NAMB be ordained to pick Church Planting winners and losers? I live in MO. So NAMB tells us that STL needs new churches but Little Rock or San Francisco does not. Really?! Anybody with a Cal pulse in STL can get NAMB $$ to start a church in STL; but not in Cape, Joplin or Columbia. Knew this before hand b/c NAMB is pretty clear about it; but the pastors in my association had lunch with one of the KC NAMB guys the other day and he restated it. NAMB is an organization operating on finite funds, so kinda like with our church ministries, they have to pick and chose what they can and cannot do. Taking a cue from Paul who hit up major population areas during his travels in Acts, they’re focusing their efforts on major population areas. The reason: there is a lot broader flow of people through those areas, coupled with the tendency of having a far greater divide between the number of non-church people vs. the number of churches. So if you can reach these areas it’s going to have an impact on the smaller areas as well as on the world. And part of what NAMB does with this emphasis is focus on ethnic church plants, since cities tend to see much higher rates of immigration than smaller areas. My fiancee currently lives in KC–she knows arabic and volunteers with a ministry that reaches out to Iraqi and Syrian refugees. These aren’t just lost people in the US, many of these are people who come from unreached people groups back home. Reach them and the global spread of the gospel potentially increases as well. And since such immigrants are more likely to settle in a KC or STL as opposed to a Cape, Joplin, or Columbia–it makes sense. You might still disagree with their focus, but there is very much a rhyme to their reason that seeks to both be faithful to the gospel and make the best use of limited funds. As for the “anybody with a cal pulse” thing–Ezell, while not anti-cal, is your standard Southern Baptist, middle ground non-arminian, non-calvinist. If you go looking for a calvinist conspiracy at namb under his leadership, you’re as likely to come back empty handed as a kid going on a snipe hunt with his pillow case in the Ozarks. I tried to… Read more »
Mike Bergman, I am well aware NAMB has limited funds. BUT my point is State Conventions are in a better position than NAMB to know where church plants are most needed in their states. That is the reason I believe state conventions and NOT NAMB should be IN CHARGE of Church Planting. The SBC needs to quit assuming everyone Baptist leader not in an SBC entity is an idiot. State Conventions, local associations and SBC pastors are the BEST people to be in charge of Church Planting, NOT NAMB!! That is SUPPOSED to be the Baptist way. The SBC used to be committed to empowering and equipping the autonomous local church…
I am only comfortable pushing a specific percentage if we do so consistently throughout each level of the money trail. I propose the following ideals, for example:
A. Christians donate 10% of gross income through the local church.
B. Churches donate 10% of undesignated receipts through the CP.
C. State conventions forward 50% of CP gifts to the Executive Committee.
If we are going to establish percentage goals for Autonomous C, then I want us to push just as enthusiastically for percentage goals to be adopted within Autonomous B and Autonomous A. The goals are related in a package deal.
Otherwise, it seems to me, we are being inconsistent in our goal setting and promotion of Christian stewardship. If considerations of autonomy keep us quiet about A and B, then they should keep us quiet about C.
However, I would rather go the other way—shout ALL THREE goals from the mountaintops and work toward ALL of them simultaneously, for this reason: if Christians and Churches do A and B, then state conventions will have the wherewithal to accomplish C while still fulfilling their mission mandates.
“A. Christians donate 10% of gross income through the local church.” No one argues here and every SBC leader at every level has been advocating for this forever.
“B. Churches donate 10% of undesignated receipts through the CP.” Rick Patrick votes “yes” on this but he only has one vote and doesn’t get to exercise executive fiat on it, leaving the option of having his association, state convention, or the SBC adopt his motion of making 10% the threshold for appointment of trustees, elected officers, leaders, etc.? Make the motion bro.
“C. State conventions forward 50% of CP gifts to the Executive Committee.” I’ll second that motion.
Apparently, your state convention doesn’t see that the current trend in CP giving is inconsistent, since they are reducing their percentage and working towards a 50/50 split. If Rick Lance has backed off of this because Alabama Baptists aren’t tithing and Alabama Baptist churches are giving less than 10%, I missed it. You can find me a quote or a link.
I’m for a 50/50 split minimum, would actually like to see a greater percentage go nationally.
On a regular basis, we have a greater focus on NAMB and IMB and local association. Take those out of the picture, and it changes some things about how we operate as a church.
Take the state convention out and it changes little to nothing. Perhaps part of that is communication on the state’s end being poorest among the levels, at least that’s how I feel about my state convention.
My state convention is invaluable for several things but those don’t add up to 58% of a CP dollar. I am willing to fund other ministries that aren’t so valuable to me or my church but not at the level that requires the majority portion of the CP. Churches can easily adjust their giving to prioritize NAMB and IMB, or local missions.
It is harder than it should be because the good Southern Baptists in the pew are reluctant to not just give to CP without thinking about it…If I could lead my church to change that I would do so in a heartbeat.
My ideal split for state/sbc cooperative donations would be 10/90%. But this percentage thing may be a waste of time because there are other ways to deal with this. I would also allow for churches to give, or remind churches that they may give, directly to the State with no CP split to the SBC, just in the same way churches have the option to give directly to the SBC. Churches can affect a 50/50% split (or any percentage they desire) simply by writing 2 checks. Since the founding of our church in 1992, we have given both (1) directly to the SBC, not through the State, and (2) to the State to be split according to the CP percentage. For many years we have had abysmal leadership at the State level. The apex of that was rewarding Belmont College’s aggressive move to become self perpetuating in its leadership. The State Convention and Belmont had signed an agreement when Belmont was founded that said if Belmont ever became self-perpetuating, Belmont would return the value of the gifts provided by the State Convention over the years to Belmont. The State Convention started out requiring Belmont to live up to this agreement, which would have resulted in the payment of about $55,000,000, if memory serves me correctly. Belmont refused, and made an initial offer of around $3 Million, which the State wisely rejected. The State then asked a court to enforce the agreement. Another wise move. Then, after taking all of the heat for filing suit in the first place and rejecting a $3 million lump sum, and before the Court ruled on the agreement, the State Convention approved a settlement of $3 Million – paid over time. Yes, the State actually got no more, and really less, than Belmont’s first offer. The people who were on the committee that approved that claimed that God had led them to do this, which is manifestly untrue because God is not stupid, and he does not lead His children to do stupid things. Why would any church be excited about giving to a group of people who make decisions like that? Also, the State Convention came perilously close to selling the BSU building on Vanderbilt’s campus. The building is right on Fraternity Row. A great place for ministry. The State Convention tired of maintaining the building, so they wanted to sell it. Talk about… Read more »
IMHO the SBC is far too bueraucratic. We are wasting mega-dollars on shuffling paper and making plans for the next big campaign designed for large churches to cram down the throats of small churches. Why should we have three layers of management when all companies and MOST other religious orgs have eliminated a level or more? Because of our polity, State Conventions or associations would be nearly impossible to eliminate across the board, although I recognize this is what NAMB seeks, to eliminate the State Conventions by emasculating them of any control over their own future. This leaves with the only option being restrict growth of SBC entities and empower state conventions.
NAMB demonstrated this year at the SBC their quest for power and control is not done yet. Now they want to tell churches how to do ministry in their communities via ‘Send Relief’. So now churches are being told by NAMB if they agree to do one of four ministries strictly following NAMB guidelines they MAY give your church some of your money back to help you do a backpack ministry of a medical/dental clinic, especially if NAMB knows your pastor or if you are a large church pastor.
IF state conventions lack vision and decent leadership then shame on us as pastors of those state conventions. I still believe, like in government, that local control is better than empowering unknown faces to make plans and decisions about how to spend the money we blindly send their way in conference rooms in Nashville or GA two or three times removed from reality.
Way too much vitriol here but ignoring that, I’ll respond to issues raised.
1. state conventions control the entire CP flow. They are choosing to keep slightly less, presumably because that’s what their churches want.
2. NAMB can’t do away with anything. They can, and should, control their own budget. In the recent past when NAMB funneled a lot of money back to the states, they states would game the system and fund a lot of non-productive positions. Areas would be funded for years and not show results such as churches planted, sometimes because these were very sparsely populated areas.
3. Only 2 of the three levels in SBC life are funded through the CP. Associations aren’t, at least directly. At least they have to demonstrate value to get the churches to fund them directly.
4. I won’t argue about bureaucracy. We’re big…we’re bureaucratic.
William:
Sorry my comment was so harsh.
It does represent my feelings about the history of state leadership in our state, but I should have been more reserved.
My pastor attended last year’s state convention. The CP percentage issue was debated. Most of the speakers were from small, rural churches, and they favored the state keeping more money.
I would say that the more urban churches favored seeing a larger percentage going to foreign missions.
I would be interested to see if others here see this same dynamic.
Your observations about bloated state offices due to the money returned to the states rings true with me. Also, I have heard over the years how state DOMs strongly influenced local evangelistic work and the planting of churches. I can see how a group of Southern Baptists who wanted to plant a church would be frustrated to find that state leadership had such a strong influence on whether that could happen. I know that in the founding of our church the state leadership were not particularly helpful, and I personally believe the former state exec would have killed our nascent effort, if he could have.
But on the other hand, I am sympathetic to Allen’s comments. He represents the feelings of some local, possibly rural, churches that feel NAMB has an oversized influence in what happens with regard to church plants and ministry.
All I can say is thank the Lord for autonomy!
We just need to understand that decisions regarding the distribution of pooled resources inevitably conflicts with autonomy.
We will probably never solve the CP funding percentage to everyone’s liking for this reason.
That’s why I advocate that churches make this adjustment on their own by writing 2 checks!
My reference to vitriol wasn’t directed at you. We all have specific complaints about stat convention actions.
NAMB is putting about half their budget in the SEND cities, leaving a lot of geography without church plants. If sparsely populated areas need churches states can find funds to do that work. They might free up some funds now locked down in centralized facilities, legacy ministries that are underperforming, or non-critical staff jobs.
Here in Alabama, we were actually downsizing our state convention and laser focusing on the Great Commission about a decade before the GCR. Our slogan is ONE MISSION—the Great Commission; ONE PROGRAM—the Cooperative Program; MANY MINISTRIES—Great Commission Ministries.
This focus on fulfilling the Great Commission through the Cooperative Program is the reason that Alabama, though not nearly the largest state convention, donates more through the Cooperative Program than any other state convention.
The CP may need some tweaking and promoting, but it does not need to be abandoned in favor of some other approach competing with it.
I’m fine with Louis and others “thanking the Lord for autonomy.” But let’s agree that this autonomy applies to the state conventions as well.
What I often see is a double standard whereby we refuse to push for percentage goals at the individual and church level, due to considerations of autonomy, while adamantly insisting on a 50% goal at the state convention level, without offering this same liberty to our autonomous state conventions.
If Baptists are free to do what they feel led, and churches are free to do what they feel led, then let’s take our foot off the pedal in our efforts to push these state conventions around. They are free to do what they feel led as well.
Why hold up a standard ONLY at the “state to national split” portion of the chain? I believe consistency demands pushing for specific goals at all three levels simultaneously. Never mention one without the other, for they are inextricably intertwined.
Rick,
I totally agree with what you have said about the right of the state convention to select and fund its priorities, and that direction is determined by the churches that assemble to make up the state convention.
NAMB and the ERLC are not part of the purpose of the SBC. The SBC was founded to allow cooperating churches to fund an international mission board. NAMB and the ERLC are funneling money away from the true SBC mission. IF the SBC focused its efforts on its true mission it would not have to be browbeating churches and state conventions for MORE MONEY! When centralized orgs like the SBC get more money they WASTE and SQUANDER it….When NAMB gets more money it creates new departments and hires more bureaucrats FURTHER REDUCING the amount of money actually available to do what they are allegedly committed to do. The solution is NOT to ignore SBC mission creep and inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The solution is to CHANGE the SBC. To say a local church can ‘change this’ by writing more checks may be true. But, IMHO, it is also a SHAMELESS COPOUT.
Do you oppose the CP helping fund the seminaries too?
Did you oppose the ERLC when Land was at the helm?
The ERLC is NOT part of the SBC mission. There are plenty of other groups doing the same thing far better than the ERLC ever will no matter who is in charge. But that being said, Moore is a mess! IMHO, we need to spin the ERLC off and let it fend for itself.
I see wisdom in the SBC supporting seminaries that are uniquely Southern Baptist. BUT supporting two seminaries would seem to make far more sense TODAY than supporting SIX. Brick and mortar seminaries are becoming irrelevant. Spin off the others and let them fend for themselves or receive regional state convention support to replace SBC support.
Allen, I agree.
Let’s get rid of NOBTS and SWBTS.
😉
So other than sending in CP money, part of which goes to NAMB, what is your church doing to help reach ethnic immigrant populations on your side of the state, especially in STL, with the gospel?
Our church is supporting our state convention offering. And I know the STL Metro Association IS ALL OVER THAT, as it should be. Our church is doing what it can as a small church with limited resources to reach our Jerusalem and our Judea AND, through IMB the ends of the earth. The ethnic groups in STL are not in our Judea. I am not opposed to supporting that work. But I do not see it as our responsibility when STL Metro is doing such a good job of it, mostly on their own, although I am sure being a NAMB Send City helps. BUT if NAMB were gone the MBC would have more resources to support the STL Metro work as they should. I feel like a broken record….Local control…Local control…Local control.
From a look at the STL Baptist website, they’re “all over that” through their partnership with NAMB.
Good catch mike.
In my state convention, Oklahoma, not quite 60 I think its fifty-seven or something like that. However we found. Great to RCP giving, our state YouTube. It’s the largest to camp in the morning However, we fund Falls Creek, our youth camp, through state CP. Falls Creek is the largest youth camp in the world. Last summer about 50k students came through there. About 18% of all students in OK come through FC, so I believe that’s a noble thing to fund. OK is a legacy state, but not as big as the others. We fund a college, but only one. I wish our split could be higher, but it can’t get much higher without harming those effective ministries.
Mike Bergman…ONCE AGAIN if NAMB did not exist the STL METRO would likely be EVEN MORE EFFECTIVELY ALL OVER THAT with just as much $$ because of fewer NAMB imposed restrictions . LOCAL CONTROL LOCAL CONTROL LOCAL CONTROL. NOTHING NAMB DOES IS LOCALLY CONTROLLED!
That’s your assumption. As Thornton pointed out above, when local places had more control the results weren’t that great.
And caps doesn’t make your point any better.
NAMB works with StLouis Metro to identify missionary and church plant opporrunities. NAMB works with StLouis Metro to partner future planters with local churches to get them on the ground and in the communities. And the NAMB works with StLouis Metro to provide churches free (or low cost) tools to better reach their communities. To say NAMB “controls” the association, shows pure ignorance of what goes on.
And BTW, when the MBC defunded several church plants across the state, it was StLouis Metro that raised funds to provide those churches the support the lost suddenly, until those churches could get on their feet. It has been a while, but there for a time relations between StLouis Metro and the MBC was not good. So counting on the MBC to step in if NAMB was dismantled would be premature.
Yeah, Tolliver was not good for the state. I like the leadership Yeats is giving, warming me back up, slowly, to the MBC.
The MBC is definitely taking a turn for the better. Sadly Tollver’s vendetta against anything that looked like, smelt like, or sounded like Calvinism and Acts29 ended up being the “least” of his problems given why he resigned as Executive Director. His selection as Interim and then fully elected ED was suppose to be a “peace” between Roger Moran his MBLA and the majority of other Conservatives within the SBC. Tolliver took that “peace” and went after churches who did nothing wrong but affiliate not only with the SBC/MBC but other groups that share their theology and methodology as well. Only now are we starting to see those wounds heal.
It is also worth noting that it looks like the entity recovery effort is finally about ready end positively. One entity is already beginning the transition back under MBC oversight after the Missouri Supreme Court refuse to listen to the appeal, and the other remaining entities have identical language in their original documents meaning they should return soon too.
Yes, Missouri Baptist Convention is looking up.
Moran–heh… I was trying to think of his name yesterday, couldn’t quite bring it to mind. Wonder whatever happened to him…
Tolliver was interim pastor of my family’s church / my home church right up until he became interim exec. I hate seeing anybody go down the way he did, and it legitimately shocked me. How he exec directed did not. He did a study at the church about the heresy of C. He tried to spin it that those who hold to C aren’t necessarily bad people, but it’s a heresy nonetheless.
As for the lawsuits–glad they’re winding down and rulings are in favor of the MBC. I thought about saying more, but I won’t… 🙂
Hmm I got a few extra words in there somehow, but you get the gist of it
I am from OK, have many friends, pastor and lay leaders in OK and have ALWAYS been impressed with the OK state convention. They are a model other legacy conventions need to emulate.
This is a great tool that has come out recently. You can see how many of your dollars goes to the CP when you give. It lets you pick state by state, and some states you can see how the states spend it as well. http://cpcalc.sbc.net/calc/
It’s a useful calculator.
States have had the practice, lately abandoned by many of them, of confusing the business of how much they keep. Some states still throw out categories like SC “entities”, SC “ministries”. Some even slap an SBC label on money spent in their state.
The calculator clearly shows how much of a CP dollar goes to the SBC allocation budget – mission boards, etc.
Chances are, though, that not one of your members has ever seen this calculator or knows how much of a CP dollar your church gives eventually gets to the mission boards. You can tell them.
Listening to you all makes me very grateful to be in Florida.
The bottom line on any discussion of state conventions moving to 50/50 is that they, the state conventions, are in complete control of a CP dollar in their state. If they vote to keep 90%, there’s not a doggone thing anyone can do…except for a church give less to the CP and more directly to what they feel is a better use of their mission dollars.
William Thornton, It is such a copout to say the SBC does not have to take a look at its inefficiencies or do anything about its bloated bureaucracy or not longer needed or affordable entities because individual churches and state conventions can vote with their dollars. Do you really think that would be a healthy revolution for the SBC to endure?
I didn’t say that Allen…don’t put words in my mouth.
I get that you are unhappy. Find a level of participation where you can be happy. If you want a revolution, stop asking questions from the convention floor and make motions. Maybe you will have one that does more than show your displeasure and gathers actual votes.
William, you said, Since the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report was adopted by the SBC in 2010 and called for a “return to the historic ideal of a 50/50 Cooperative Program distribution between the state conventions and the SBC”, If we have never had a 50/50 split, how can they call it historic. We did have a history of churches giving 10% of undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program but they didn’t want to mention that because most of those leading the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force are from churches that have not been strong supporters of the cooperative program or anything that doesn’t help them directly. They have no understanding of the cooperative program or how valuable it was in the history of our convention. During discussion on the GCRTF one of the architects, Danny Akin, described the state conventions as, “bloated and inefficient bureaucracies with red tape a mile long,” and his SEBTS staff member accused the state conventions of “skimming” CP dollars that rightfully belong to the SBC. That is the kind of thinking that caused the GCRTF to be a failure. It was about politics and money, not the Great Commission.
There is a myth that is popular with a segment of our convention that money spent by the state conventions is not missions. That is false. State conventions not only support missions efforts in their states but provide the foundation of the missions efforts of the SBC. Many recent SBC leaders are not wise enough to see if the destroy the state convention and associations they may cause the whole SBC structure to collapse. We have very few visionaries in leadership today that understand how it all works together.
It isn’t the state conventions that determine how much money is kept in the state. It is the churches of that state that send messengers to vote. That is grass roots Southern Baptists.
It is historically accurate to say that 50/50 was the split at various times in some states over the years…
For example:
Notice Georgia 1948 – 1975 then again 87-90.
http://www.sbc.net/cp/statecontributions/georgia.asp
Yes indeed, Ron, churches in a state determine their state’s split and a growing number are moving to or towards 50/50.
I don’t buy your point that GCRTF members did not understand the CP. The more cogent point is that they did, and recommended accordingly.
Neither do I accept your implied point that all state spending is “missions.”
Neither do I see anyone trying to “destroy” state conventions, since moving to 50/50 would leave about $250 million to spend.
State conventions control the CP revenue. They are moving, consistently and relentlessly towards 50/50 because, one presumes, they judge that their member churches desire it.
Allen,
I am trying to understand why a church wanting to affect how it’s mission dollars are spent might simply write 1 check to the SBC and another check to the state convention – why that is a cop out?
As I mentioned, the heartbeat of our church is really not connected to the state convention and its ministries.
What action would you think would not be a cop out?
Btw, if you are in St. Louis – the convention there was great. I really enjoyed Pharoh’s Donut shop!!!
This has been suggested…
http://baptist21.com/blog-posts/2014/cp-another-way/
…but has never gained much traction. Designated gifts direct to the XComm are made every year but are in the low single digit percentages of total CP giving. It is an option but an option that would be considered not to be CP giving, since state conventions are cut out of a check sent directly to Nashville for the SBC allocation budget.
My appeal would be that churches would support the CP at a desired level without designations, support the two big mission offerings, then go direct with whatever else they wanted to do.
But, no one will turn down your checks.
As a former Exec. Director, I have been responsible for leading discussions and dealing with the consequences in the short-term and projected long-term implications as well. Some thoughts for consideration…
1. CP founders asked the congregations to use 50% of offerings locally and invest 50% in the C.P.
2. All money comes from local churches. SBC mission efforts have been funded off a regenerating ecosystem from the local up, not national down. Through some national and state decisions, it appears we are less focused locally. The stronger the base, the more human and financial resources available to use in the non-regenerating part of the SBC, which is international missions in foreign lands. A factory cannot produce products if the plant breaks down and most believe that is happening now across the SBC.
3. Language is telling. When the pastors and churches of state conventions make decisions regarding splits, why is the portion used to strengthen and expand the base in their state and their mission field referred to as “keeping” and not “investing” in local and regional mission fields and strengthening the willing of the 42,000 existing churches and training of future pastors and missionaries. (ex. Falls Creek in OK has trained countless future pastors and missionaries)
4. Both IMB and NAMB have major promotional efforts and PR teams, and the vast majority of states and virtually all associations invest small amounts in PR and cannot position themselves as the “in” or “cool” approach to ministry and mission. Not necessarily a right or wrong, but I believe accurately reflects reality.
5. Southern Baptists have supported AA and Lottie with strong dollars. If these were figured into the entire formula on percentages, the numbers would be quite different.
GOOD NEWS!!! The world is smaller and coming to us as Annie stated. Additionally, there are more local/individual churches investing directly into international missions than every before in our history.
GCR among other items, recognizes Great Commission Giving which could be impacting CP. National leader “the GCR was the worst decision of the SBC in the last 50 years.” Time will tell but indicators are emerging.
Our system is intimately tied to trust and goodwill, along with a cooperative spirit. Are these really better today than they were prior to the GCR and subsequent actions?
Few reflections…
1. 3 basic categories of state conventions in terms of size and funding. To treat them all the same or reference them all the same is not helpful to them or our collective mission. These are complex issues and a flat 50% is simple, but does not recognize the wide variety of factors in each state and their overall mission efforts.
2. FUNDING by NAMB … is spending twice as much in church planting, dramatically reduced funding in evangelism in favor of the single priority unproven approach, and not investing locally through Associations as the ones living in the field as they did historically in the non-south regions.
3. “NAMB IS THE ONLY SUCCESS STORY” (Wm. Thornton) Story yes. Success?
NOT baptisms (SBC 70 year low, it is not a single cause, but no longer jointly funding evangelism staff to serve new and existing churches outside of the south), NOT church planting (starts down between 500-600/yr. the last 6 years according to SBC Annual), NOT in building trust and goodwill as this has been damaged across the country, NOT in supporting local direction and even state direction of mission efforts and strategies in favor of a nationalistic approach, NOT in building up the ground level part of ecosystem, as they have directed funding and partnership away from all the associations and now are not requiring planters to give to the associations as a part of receiving CP funding, NOT in honoring their cooperative agreements, NOT in level of partnership with state conventions including the south as there is significant decline in two-way learnings and exchanges, NOT in keeping evangelism a priority in favor of a new approach that is failing to deliver on stated expected results, NOT in supporting one of least expensive and most effective strategies to reach internationals – our college campus ministries.
**There are successes in the field. Guys and their families are pouring themselves out in the fields and are to be applauded. However, from the perspective of the national strategy, the results tell the real story.
4. In the midst of the above struggles and declines, the NAMB President has led NAMB to accumulate increases in unrestricted reserves, a reported $285 million and are buying houses in various parts of the country when evangelism staff have been defunded and not prioritized.
Louis, I agree! We did have a good convention in STL, a great convention town IMHO! …I have never had Pharaoh’s doughnuts. Will have to look them up.
Will McRaney is a strident critic of Kevin Ezell and NAMB, with history as to why that is so. Such doesn’t mean he is always wrong but should be considered as a caveat in all he writes that touches on the subjects.
I am perfectly willing to trust NAMB. They are a large, sprawling entity and imperfect in several ways. As for NAMB being the only success story at the moment, earlier data from state conventions re: church starts and the earlier NAMB data is flawed. By most any measure the SEND program is successful.
If “trust and goodwill” are important perhaps we could see more of the latter.
Other comments on WR’s comment:
GCG has been, again, noted as a bad decision. Hogwash. Let’s see data keeping in mind the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
NAMB was earlier funding outlying state conventions which were establishing centralized HQ with buildings and staff, along with funding boutique missionary slots, and associational work without expectations of church growth. Church starts languished for decades under this system in many places. I’m perfectly willing to try NAMB’s new plan.
Legacy state conventions spending is uneven. Conference centers touted regularly here aren’t a large part of any states budget. We just gave one of our two away because it was old, outdated, lightly used, and unprofitable.
I would be perfectly willing for my state convention to up their “keep” of a CP dollar from 58 cents to 80 cents if they would commit to starting 1000 churches in the next five years and if state executive staff would resign if they fail. But this will never happen because legacy institutions and jobs which have a stranglehold on CP dollars are locked in. There’s little room for anything fresh and new.
State leaders regularly factor LM and AA dollars into their justification of keeping 60+% of a CP dollar. They do so because it sounds better to say “50% of every dollar we receive from churches in this state is send to the SBC entities.” This is deceptive because the state convention only routes the massive LM and AA dollars. They don’t receive them in any sense other than to rewrite checks.
Will wrote, ” CP founders asked the congregations to use 50% of offerings locally and invest 50% in the C.P.” I’d like to see the source behind that.
More precisely, the difference in 5 years prior to transition in NAMB leadership in 2010 and 5 years since has a reported decline in number of church starts of 592/year (SBC Annual). Assuming some difference in counting, which has not be shared publicly that I am aware of, communicating we are starting 500 churches less per year is well beyond generous in looking at the facts.
I am for NAMB/HMB, and have served it formally and informally in many ways for 24 years. For those in power stewarding well before God and Southern Baptists what they have inherited as a matter of trust. I am for truth. I am for local and state direction. I am for our future being strong. I am for the President leading with integrity. I am for evaluating the actual strategies. Mostly, I am for stewarding ministry in manners that please God and are in keeping with God’s values and commands.
William, I cannot quickly put my hands on the 50-50 by local churches. It never happened in practiced on a wide scale. I could be mistaken in memory, but I am almost certain that was the stated goal. If I locate it, I will share it. Here is an article on the history. It is a summary article on the history of CP. http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=240
The Cooperative Program was created with twelve basic working principles:
1. The Cooperative Program was an equal partnership between the Southern Baptist Convention and the state conventions;
2. General promotional responsibility rested with the “Commission on Cooperative Program of Southern Baptists (later SBC Executive Committee);
3. Field promotion responsibility belonged to the various state conventions;
4. Money given by the churches was to be evenly divided between the state convention and SBC;
5. Except for major special offerings already established, any special offering of any agencies would need to be approved by the appropriate convention;
6. The state conventions would divide their share of the money to their causes, and the SBC would divide its share to its causes;
7. Agencies participating in the CP would not be permitted to approach the churches directly;
8. Certain basic items were to be deducted from the total before division; such as the cost of promotion in the states and the direct costs of administration;
9. The CP would preserve the right of personal designations;
10. Agencies would be permitted to seek out individuals for special gifts to capital or endowment programs;
11. The funds given by the churches were held to be sacred trust funds belonging to both the state conventions and the SBC. The state conventions were not to touch the SBC portion for their own use;
12. The CP included both designated and undesignated offerings. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Though this statement has appeared in several secondary source venues over the years, including this 2000 SBC LIFE article, research into primary sources of Convention action and reports during the 1920s and 1930s has shown this statement to be in error (see baptist2baptist.com/Issues/CP/originalintent.asp). Designated gifts to SBC agencies or entities have never been counted as Cooperative Program gifts to the Convention.]