Randy is the Executive Director/Treasurer of the Executive Board of the Tennessee Baptist Convention
You are familiar with the story. Two mothers came before King Solomon with a baby, each claiming to be the mother. An argument ensued; accusations fly, and Solomon decides to divide the baby, thereby revealing the identity of the true mother.
Somewhere along the way, the Cooperative Program became the baby many in the Southern Baptists Convention want to divide. Impatience fuels a call for drastic action. We’ve become too quick to draw the sword without considering the broader consequences. Let’s take a breath, step back and look at the bigger picture.
Recently, William Thornton authored a blog post for SBC Voices titled, “The long, slow slog to a 50/50 Cooperative Program split.” I don’t disagree with everything Mr. Thornton presented, but as one who leads one of the state conventions (Tennessee) mentioned in his commentary, I feel there are several facts that should have been included that would have painted a more balanced reality of state conventions.
First, we are not “slogging” toward a 50/50 distribution, but rather strategically moving to enable it. In the past four years, the Tennessee Baptist Convention has adopted and approved budgets that create a path in that direction with a goal of being at 50/50 in budget year 2018-2019. In Tennessee, the process has included a drawdown of staffing by 25 percent since 2011 and a willing cooperation by our state ministry partners (Adult Homes, Children’s Homes, Tennessee Baptist Foundation and Union and Carson Newman Universities) to significantly reduce their Cooperative Program allocations. These measures and more have allowed us to annually increase the percentage directed toward the SBC Executive Committee. We are currently on track to meet our commitment.
Despite that consistent movement, some grow impatient. The point often overlooked in drastically moving to 50/50 distribution is the collateral damage done to viable Great Commission ministries when they don’t have opportunity to adjust to decreased funding. We aren’t dealing with just an accounting function here. Remember, there are people behind those dollar signs. People serving, and people being served. Decisions that affect them should be made responsibly. Although I can’t speak for all state conventions, I can say that most state conventions are addressing similar concerns as they too move toward a 50/50 distribution.
Another issue too conveniently overlooked is general church health. Research we all quote reminds us that 80 percent of our SBC churches are plateaued and declining. A significant number of those churches are in the Southeast. They are seen as the cash cow providing majority funding for the totality of Southern Baptist’s Great Commission endeavors. However, the cow is sick. It is painfully obvious that the call for more giving from churches that are plateaued and declining leads to a dead end. If church health is not addressed on the most fundamental level then the wellspring of Southern Baptist missions will run dry. The state conventions along with local associations are the primary entities in the Southern Baptist Convention tasked with helping the local church. Financially undercutting state conventions impairs their ability to help, resulting in more of a decline in Cooperative Program giving which in turn will cripple – then shut down – other SBC entities.
And then there is the reality of where we are as a nation and state. In Tennessee alone we have more than 145 different global people groups now living within our borders, and more than 45 of those are identified by the International Mission Board as among the world’s most spiritually unreached. The situation is similar in other states. Throw in the rapid population growth we are experiencing and Golden Gate Seminary President Jeff Iorg has said that Tennessee’s spiritual demographics will look like Colorado in the next few years and California within 10.
Again, state conventions – and in our context of Tennessee – have the primary task of helping churches successfully turn back the tsunami of spiritual darkness that is about to swamp “The Buckle of the Bible Belt.”
Please let me be clear, I am fervently in favor of a 50/50 distribution. In fact I believe it is necessary if Southern Baptists are going to have a balanced and comprehensive strategy for globally reaching the spiritually lost with the gospel. Yes, I agree there are issues that need to be corrected at the state level and we are working on those, but there are also issues that need correcting at the national level too (such as the IMB’s money management issue that resulted in the downsizing of 1,000 missionaries and staff).
I embrace IMB President David Platt’s comments regarding the “Southern Baptist Ecosystem,” and the role each SBC entity plays in enabling us to be the Great Commission people we strive to be. I also respect the state conventions that have made the decision not to move to 50/50 because of their own Great Commission priorities. The local church, giving through the Cooperative Program, lies at the core of that ecosystem, but it takes us all working cooperatively to be successful.
Unfortunately, those with a bent toward diminishing the work of state conventions reference “Cooperative Program dollars that stay in the state” as if mission dollars are placed in a vault in some state convention office and withheld from doing God’s work. It’s disparaging. The pastors and laymen representing our network of churches are the people deciding where their sacrificial gifts are invested. As a leader of the TBC, I follow the direction desired by our local churches. They formulate, present and approve the allocation of Cooperative Program dollars.
We are a convention of like-minded churches led by good pastors, ministry leaders and laymen under the Lordship of Christ. We must never forget that. Intellectual elitists that have lost touch with the average Baptist in the pew should never lead us.
We should rejoice with any state convention sending more resources beyond themselves, and we must be respectful of the churches making the decision not to do so. It is impossible for someone in Georgia to judge the collective wisdom of churches in Tennessee, Kentucky or any other state without appearing to be arrogant.
State conventions have long been an easy target for criticism, and granted, some of that has been justified. However, most state conventions have made, and are making, adjustments to cooperate in getting to the 50/50 distribution while trying very hard to make sure people and churches don’t fall through the cracks.
On closer examination, it is easy to see that our greatest need is to be mutually supportive; to cooperate toward the same goal. If we do that, we’ll find there really is no need to unnecessarily divide the baby.
I agree with your post about the importance of the State Convention in helping local churches regain spiritual health and restore biblical vision. I do not believe theses are things the SBC can really accomplish. And I agree that asking more $$ from dying churches while reducing the resources available to keep them from dying in unreasonable and unwise. This is why I believe the SBC must take a long look at everything it does and GREATLY reduce its need for CP $$ in order to get back to our MAin THING as the SBC, which is to cooperate together to support Intl Missions. I am an advocate for “SIMPLE SBC” which would ask the SBC to quit doing nice things we can no longer afford and quit supporting entities that are not our CORE MISSION.
* The ERLC is an unnecessary and controversial expenditure for the SBC. I know it’s budget is relatively small. But if its elimination would put 10 more missionaries on the field the SBC would, IMHO, be better without it.
* The SBC does not need to support SIX Seminaries. It would be good to have one or two distinctly SBC seminaries for training. But with the trend towards online degrees and satellite campuses SIX is unnecessary.
* NAMB should be eliminated. There is nothing NAMB is doing that State Conventions should not be in charge of and could not do better. I know not all state conventions are created equal. But I believe in local control. NAMB is attempting to centralize Church Planting, DR and other State Convention functions. NAMB is an expensive and redundant entity that has been searching for a purpose for decades. AND IT STILL IS! For the sake of making MORE resources available for the Great Commission we need to shut NAMB down.
* Salaries, perks and facilities need to be more in line with the churches. It makes no sense for SBC facilities, compensation and perks to be so far more than what State Conventions and churches are able to afford.
We CAN have our cake and eat it too in the SBC if we will simply return to our SBC roots.
Allen, thank you. The SBC will thrive when we come together around commonly shared passions no matter the method of financial support. Our genuine passion for Christ and His commandments and commissioning is the real issue, not our programs, structures or methodology.
The ERLC is the SBC’s only policy group interacting with the US Congress. If they were to be removed who would you have lobby on behalf of SBC interests before Congress?
So tell me, which four of the six seminaries would you remove? What metric of decision making would you use? MBTS has just had several years of the largest ON CAMPUS enrollment growth in school history. Yes we have online degrees and distance learning locations, but our main campus is fuller than it has ever been. Further, each of the six seminaries seem to be going in different directions in their individual focus. Two schools, cannot cover all the different focus areas. Further, 6 seminaries in different areas of the country allow for SBC students to attend a school closer to their home and receive the benefits of attending a SBC seminary. You talk about online and distance education, and for some that is a great benefit, but MOST seminarians still attend in person. Shutting down four seminaries would make it much more difficult for those students to do so.
Your thoughts on NAMB show a clear bias of a large SBC state convention thinking. Yes some states may be able to take over fairly effectively. But what about conventions like Minnesota/Wisconsin? Kansas/Nebraska? Northwest Baptist Convention (Washington, Oregon, Idaho)? Most of these conventions, are only able to plant churches because of NAMB help. Do you really think other state conventions are going to send these conventions money to plant without the NAMB? Shutting down the NAMB and saying let the states handle it shows a clear disconnect with frontier state conventions.
Convention and entity personnel should be paid in line with their level of responsibility. It should be in relation to secular and other non-SBC religious entity pay. It is simply foolish to believe that employees at our entities would or should be willing to take drastically less than what they could earn in other places. As far as church pastor pay, they too should be able to be paid in relation to their level of responsibility of (effectively) being the CEO of a small non-profit. Further, I think our entity personal make far less than you think they do. Just a hunch.
Thanks for your reply. I am not trying to be harsh towards our SBC entities. I am simply trying to free up more CP $$ for INTL Missions. It troubles me and the vast majority of SBC church pastors and members that we have lost 1,000 IMB missionaries. While I applaud the plans of David Platt in using more vols and part-time staff, I still believe our INTL Missions efforts have been set back significantly with this downsize and will remain hampered in the future without a return at least to the numbers of missionaries we had before the downsizing. SO with that in mind let me respond to your concerns about SIMPLE SBC:
* I believe the Exec Board could partner with one or more conservative political action groups and have as much or more impact in DC. A partnership would be far less expensive than supporting our own facility and staff. Most state conventions have their own Christian Life or ERLC type organization. If there were no SBC ERLC they would be more motivated to do more than they do today. The ERLC as it is today often takes or does not take positions many SBC folks disagree with. Also the ERLC does not address issues that are more regional or state specific. LOCAL CONTROL is important. It seems like the ERLC is also not very accountable for anything they say or do on behalf of the SBC. This is really not surprising since they are so far removed and have such a distant relationship to SBC churches. I realize the ERLC is a small CP user. But IMHO it is a luxury we can no longer afford.
*As for the seminaries. I would think we would keep Southern for historical reasons. Flip a coin for the other. The other four seminaries would not go away. They would simply no longer receive CP funding. If State Conventions are allowed to hold on to a reasonable amt of CP $$ regional State Conventions could provide support to the other seminaries as they do with SBC Colleges and Universities today. The purpose of SIMPLE SBC is not to close down any Seminary. They are all fine institutions. The purpose is to free up more CP $$ to support Intl Missions, our true SBC-only purpose and to make all SBC entities more accountable to the local church. The SBC can no longer afford to support six seminaries with CP $$. Part of the reason our seminaries strayed theologically so far from the typical SBC church was because of a lack of effective SBC oversight. Had the seminaries been accountable to the more conservative state conventions their liberal leanings would have been shut down a lot earlier and easier. Once again, LOCAL control is best.
* Now on to NAMB. Once again, NAMB is a luxury we can no longer afford. It is an almost entirely redundant entity. There is little or nothing NAMB does that state conventions do and should be in charge of doing. I know State Conventions have historically not always effectively led. But that is the fault of the churches in that state. State Conventions historically have and should in the future continue to be those in the SBC tasked to ASSIST CHURCHES in doing Church Planting, DR, evangelism training, etc. Because of the pressure to 50/50 many state conventions no longer have a state level person in evangelism making local training and support almost nonexistent. In the past in MO I had a personal rel with our Evangelism Director and Church Planting Director. But with NAMB largely in charge of both, I as a local pastor can often not find anyone at NAMB even willing to return a call much less come and PERSONALLY help our Assoc or Church have . My small church does have the funds to allow me to travel in MO for training. But not to go to Nashville, Dallas or GA. If NAMB were eliminated a tremendous amount of CP $$ would be freed up to support Intl Missions and LOCLO control would be greater.
* As far as the support of salaries and resources, it seems unreasonable to me to continue to suggest churches NOT pursue bldg. pgms and min plans AND more reasonable staff compensation that could benefit their local ministry ability to increase their CP giving to at least 10% of their offerings so the SBC (and state conventions) can have state of the art everything and compensation at a significantly higher level than local church pastors who often have as much or more training, education and experience as the entity staff.
I am not trying to be harsh. I am just trying to be practical and historical. I am not a fan of central control in gov’t, as would be true for MOST rank and file SBC church members and leaders. I am not a fan of central control in the SBC either for the same reasons, the inefficiency of large bureaucracies, lack of effectiveness, lack of accountability without local control AND support for church autonomy and control of what the SBC does in the name of our churches and members.
I am going to focus on the NAMB issue because you seem to be either unintentionally missing my point, or you are intentionally ignoring it because you know it damages your argument.
What would you have frontier state conventions do in terms of church planting, church revitalization/development, missions outreach to immigrant and unreached people groups? Conventions like Minnesota/Wisconsin simply do not have the ability to plant churches, or fund missionaries to immigrants that Legacy conventions have, or even conventions like Missouri, at least they do not without the help of the NAMB.
Minneapolis/St.Paul has nearly 3/4ers of a million first or second generation immigrants, nearly 90% of them are from unreached people groups. Couple this with the fact that the Twin Cities have the lowest ratio of SBC churches to population of any major city in the nation. Minnesota/Wisconsin does not have the funds to support the evangelism/missionary/church planting effort needed to reach the Twin Cities. It is a NAMB “Send” city/metro for a very good and very clear reason. By dismantling NAMB you would basically be telling that metor that YOU do not care about them. That YOU would rather send your money elsewhere and that they are left to fend for themselves.
I ask you again, what would you have these frontier conventions do with the absence of NAMB? You want my opinion? Maybe NAMB should spend less money in/on legacy states, letting those states do what you suggest, pay their own way, and taking that money and put it into frontier states. But I think at its heart, THAT is what you are opposed to in the first place. Local control is nice, except for those in need elsewhere. To them you are basically saying “We don’t care!”
BTW, NAMB is the SBC agency responsible for all our chaplains, Military and civilian. Who would take over for that as a national convention whole? Individual state conventions? Do you really think that would work?
Sorry I forgot that one. Smaller state conventions could be adopted by legacy state conventions in order to assist them in their growth and development. The SBC Executive Committee or perhaps SBC officers could encourage this to happen. Once again, local control which can be terminated by either party if desired. It beats NAMB coming and dictating what frontier conventions can and cannot do as is the current practice. I know plenty of State Convention folks who would agree with me that NAMB has become quite a bully!
The Minnesota/Wisconsin Baptist Convention indirectly, and the Twin City Metro Baptist Association are not only in full partnership with the NAMB, they are the ones on the ground telling NAMB where they need resources and directing where things are going. NAMB is basically providing the funding, the training and the national call to action; that is about it (which is not to say that work is not extremely important). Just like Send St Louis. If you think Steve Dyes (DOM TCMBA) or Jim Breeden (DOM SLMBA) are just lying down and letting NAMB run roughshod over them, you frankly have never met or gotten to know either man.
I admit, I only have knowledge of two Send NAMB cities, but in both cases your belief that NAMB runs everything and locals have no control is just down right wrong.
As far as Legacy states “adopting” frontier conventions, you will only lead to the exact same issue you claim to be against. People with the money dictating how the money is spent. If you think you would not have that problem you are deciving yourself. Want my proof? I point back to what the Missouri Baptist Convention did to several church plants that it was giving funds to. The STATE decided they did not like what those churches were, so 2 weeks before Christmas they said all fund will stop on December 31st. That was immoral! And that is exactly what State Conventions would do if THEY were the ones sending money to frontier conventions. Don’t like the type of churches those states/associations are planting? Remove funding! Yea…that would greatly improve the situation! (incase you could not figure it out, that last sentence was dripping with sarcasm)
SVMUSCHANY, I am sure there are poor decisions that have been made with NAMB in the driver’s seat as well. And serving in MO I am very much aware of the disastrous decisions our at that time highly politicized State Convention leadership made in regard to Acts 29 affiliated church plants. BUT all that being said, I STILL prefer State Convention local control over NAMB centralized control as the more accountable, more biblical and more church centered option. And once again, the goal FOR ME is more $$ for IMB and more local control. Our current administratively burdened model in the SBC with three layers of management beyond the local church cannot be sustained in an economic environment where church offerings, and therefore CP giving, will likely fall like a rock in the near future and stay there when the bottom falls out of our economy. As a realist looking at our world becoming one economically, this is something that is far more likely to happen than not regardless of elections, and sooner than we care to think…
I appreciate the fact that a state convention CEO recognizes that a conversation on the CP split has been occurring in this and similar non-traditional venues and should be engaged. In a decade of such CP conversations this is the first occasion that I recall a direct response. Save for what I note in the paragraph below, I think it is healthy.
Randy Davis wrote, “It is impossible for someone in Georgia to judge the collective wisdom of churches in Tennessee, Kentucky or any other state without appearing to be arrogant.” I’d call that an unnecessary and unproductive slap. If what I wrote appears to be arrogance as he labels it, then what must he have already said to Bryant Wright (who notably spoke positively of a 25/75 split) or Danny Akin (who used a certain disparaging term considered by state executives and others about CP spending some years ago)?
There are a number of Cooperative Program supporting Southern Baptists who have long been offering their opinion on the *macro* issue of how the CP is being divided and how the legacy state conventions, a group that includes the TBC, keep most of a CP dollar. This is a legitimate issue. What I offered about the TBC was not opinion but fact, and a relatively positive one at that, “The Tennessee convention, third largest CP giver, is at about [a] 57/43 [split].” Actually, they are closer to 56/44, I believe.
He calls the move to 50/50 “strategic”. I call it a “slog.” In his favor, he and other state execs must manage constituencies, payroll recipients, and others who have had decades long claims on CP dollars in their states. That calls for some consensus building strategy. In my favor, the split has moved from about 62/48 to 61/49 in the years since the SBC in session adopted the GCR Final Report. That’s a slog. A few states have moved more rapidly.
These things aside, I think a number of good points have been raised and I appreciate that. Were I in Tennessee, where an opinion offered by a TBC pastor on either macro or micro CP issues would not, one hopes, be considered to appear arrogant, I’d probably like what he is doing and the general direction the TBC is headed.
The sooner we get to 50/50, the better.
Thank you William.
William,
My apologies for the “slap”. Would love the opportunity to personally visit with you some time in the future.
William is a true curmudgeon. Or is it codger? He was asked to appear in Grumpy Old Men, but couldn’t.
Seriously, he’s a great guy to disagree with. Reasonable and annoying at the same time!
I would love to meet Randy Davis any time; however, I don’t plan to cross the GA/TN line until I get over the UGA/UT debacle. Sometime next week I will engage his salient points on the CP. While we may differ a bit on a few things, I’ve read a good many of his articles and think we would mostly agree.
If I were a state convention exec I would only worry about those who don’t think the CP is worth discussing any longer.
If, Dave Miller, I’m not established as both a curmudgeon and a codger I’ve been a utter failure in retirement.
Here in the great state of TN, we’re tickled to death to have Randy Davis as our Exec. Dir.; even though he is a Bama fan. We overlook that! We appreciate his leadership greatly. Good things are happening in TN, although a lot more needs to happen. There’s a lot of lost people in TN. As yall read, the nations are moving to TN. And, we need to reach them with the Gospel of our Lord and Savior.
Let me just say that the move towards the 50/50 split is going as fast as it can go. There are many, many ministries in TN that are having to sacrifice to get down to this split. They’re having to make adjustments. The TN Baptist Children’s Homes is one of those mininstries; a ministry to take care of children and lead them to salvation. And, it would not be good stewardship to just cut them, and many other great TN ministries, off. They need to time to make the adjustments. Right now, children are on a waiting list to get into the Children’s Home; children who are abused and neglected; children who need Jesus. And, the money needed to take care of the “orphans and the widows” and reach our Jerusalem, here, in TN is not that plentiful, at this time. So, a 50/50 split is taking money away from some great ministries, here, in TN.
So, maybe we need “slog.”
God bless you, Randy. I’m looking forward to seeing you at the Summit.
David Worley, pastor
Bethel Baptist Church
Greenfield, TN
Thanks David! It is a joy to be with you on this journey!
I agree that we need more funding for international missions, but I’ll speak up and say that I don’t see it helpful to push this 50/50 split on every state convention. Each state has local ministries that would not be funded any other way, and will fall apart if funding is pulled. We like many states have children’s homes, and Hope Pregnancy Centers, and ethnic church starts, and church planting, but we also have Falls Creek, the largest youth camp in the world. At one point it was said that there were more IMB missionaries who got their call to missions at Falls Creek than any other one place. Other states have similar ministries that they fund that nobody else will.
There are no churches that I know of that spend 50% of their budget on missions, they fund local ministries. You could say state conventions are doing the same. Before I get jumped on I know there are many redundancies, many wasted dollars, and more. And they must all be eliminated and the process streamlined. And I believe firmly in the value of the CP. But how should a church decide what to give of their budget to missions? Should a state convention use the same process? Which possible local ministries should be ignored to send money on to foreign missions? I know our own state convention has been burned by jobs that were being done by NAMB that they decided they couldn’t do anymore, and had to scramble to fill the need.
Again, I’m for the need for more money to IMB and evangelism, but I don’t get why this 50/50 must be forced to fit on so many states that are so different.
No one is pushing anything on the states. They make their own decisions and are moving towards 50/50. Why?
I’m always curious when people list funding destinations. You wrote that your state funded: “children’s homes, and Hope Pregnancy Centers, and ethnic church starts, and church planting, but we also have Falls Creek”
Do you know what percentage of the total State budget goes to this group?
These figures are rounded, but 10% goes to Ok Baptist University, 3% to children’s homes, 27% to state ministries, 5 percent or so to Falls Creek, 2 percent to Retirement Villages. Those are rough numbers and that doesn’t equal the 60 percent that OK keeps. It’s a rough look. But I wanted to answer the question before I run off to church.
The point that Mark makes below is right. We do have to mark hard choices. These however are subjective decisions. Even geography plays a role in these decisions. Where one sees waste another sees valuable ministry. Therein lies the rub.
There was a time in SBC history when we could afford to fund the many worthy ministries you all have mentioned. Now we cannot. That dearth of funds forces us to choose between good, better, and best. Those choices are subjective and painful. They result in discussions and debates like this one. I have heard Randy Davis speak at Mid-America Seminary. He articulated a biblical, compelling vision for a missional Tennessee Baptist Convention. The TBC sold it’s big building and has downsized and decentralized it’s staff. He is trying to accomplish what William desires, but there are many supporters of long established ministries and programs. They vigorously defend their favorite agency and it’s funding. I am a retired foreign missionary, and I want to see a 50/50 split, also.
Separate checks to would also help. Churches are strongly encouraged to support CP as a consolidated entity. This means if they are upset with NAMB they may cut CP but if they are upset with the State Convention they may also cut CP. If churches were encouraged to give to State Conventions and SBC separately it would be easier for churches to decide who deserves what missions money. I know churches can do that today. But few pastors are brave enough to go there because their members have been so indoctrinated by the CP ‘one check’ concept. If a church wants to give through the CP but does not want $$ to go to the ERLC how can they do that? Is it even possible?
This plan eliminates the CP as we have known it for almost a century. Bad idea.
The better plan is to evaluate and adjust support levels based on your church’s priorities. This may mean reducing CP percentage and increasing LM and/or AA support (or the reverse, though the movement is not in this direction).
There are things I don’t like about all entities but I am still willing to support at some level. You could ask Russell Moore to send back your few dollars (per thousand in CP).
If one violates your core convictions, don’t give or negatively designate (if possible). It may be possible to do this in your state. I don’t know.
I am privileged to serve Tennessee Baptists along with Brother Randy as Administrator for the Tennessee Baptist Convention. My first denominational paycheck came in 1979 from the Georgia Baptist Convention when I was still in college. Since then I have worked for the Kentucky and Mississippi conventions and for the last 23 years in my current position in Tennessee. In all of those years, I have never been as excited about the ministry of the state convention as I am about the work going on currently in Tennessee under Randy’s leadership.
Most folks in Tennessee know that Randy spent 18 years as a pastor to two different churches in our state after serving two other churches in Mississippi. His passion for cooperative ministry and the Cooperative Program did not begin when he came to work for the state. He led both of his churches in Tennessee to move from less than 3% in Cooperative Program giving to 10% giving during his time as pastor. This was not a flash in the pan commitment either. Today, these two churches rank 20th and 52nd in Sunday morning attendance among Tennessee churches. But, they rank #4 and #8 in Cooperative Program giving, #4 and #8 in Annie Armstrong giving and #2 and #6 in Lottie Moon giving in the state of Tennessee. Plus, they are key churches in providing leadership in our state on Boards and Committees, Disaster Relief ministry, compassion ministries and age-group leadership. With Brother Randy it was never “either-or”, it was always “both-and”!
Adrian Rodgers famously once said, “you can’t spend percentages.” So, let’s look at four scenarios using some real dollar numbers. (The following figures have been rounded some to make the calculations a little easier, but represent actual dollars and percentages in Tennessee Baptist life.)
Scenario 1: TBC moves to an equal 50-50 distribution (we don’t use the terms split or division in TN – there is too much of that in SBC life) immediately. This would be an increase from the 45.5% that will be proposed at next month’s annual meeting. Based on the proposed $35 million budget and 51% of the SBC going to IMB, the IMB would get an additional $803,250.
Scenario 2: TN churches move from 6% to 7% of undesignated receipts through CP. (We are at about 5.6% but rounding is easier.) With no increase to church income, CP income would go up from $35 to $40.8 million. With 45.5% going to SBC and 51% to IMB, IMB would get $1.35 million more dollars ($500,000 more than scenario 1).
Scenario 3: TN Baptists move from giving 3% of their income to 4% of their income to their church. (Studies show that the average American only gives 2.5% of their income to charity and that on average Christians are not much better. But, we believe in the Tennessee volunteer spirit and are estimating that TN Baptists give 3% now.) If individuals increased 1% on average, then churches would see $194 million more income. Staying at 6% through CP and 45.5% to SBC and 51% to IMB, the TN CP income grows to $46.6 million and the IMB would get $2.7 million more ($1.9 million more than scenario 1 and $1.35 million more than scenario 2.)
Scenario 4: ALL OF THE ABOVE: Individuals move to 4%, Churches move to 7% and TBC moves to 50%. The IMB will get $5.7 million more dollars from Tennessee.
All of the above is what the staff at TBC wants to strive after. We are leading in that effort by moving to 50%. TBC will be there by the 2018-19 budget year. We are challenging churches to move to 10%. It is one of our 5 Objectives. We are equipping churches to disciple believers in Biblical stewardship. Brother Randy regularly reminds staff that our Objectives are impractical, impossible, but yet very imperative.
Are we making a difference? It is too early for statistical evidence, but there is antidotal evidence that we are making a difference. Our largest giving church has tripled their percentage giving over the last four years. A young pastor in one of our smaller churches became convicted about cooperative giving and led his church to go from 4% to 10% in one jump. He faced opposition, but got it done. Their total receipts are up and their Lottie Moon offering doubled last year. We also have seen a 17.8% increase in giving through our state missions offering over the last three years. We depend on it just like IMB depends on Lottie Moon and NAMB depends on Annie Armstrong. It is still a budgeted offering which supplies most of our church planting and church revitalization funds. While not everyone is happy, the spirit of cooperation and unified purpose has never been higher in Tennessee.
Our primary objective, which the other objectives serve, is to move to 50,000 Baptisms in Tennessee every year by the year 2024. Even then, we will only be keeping up with rate of population growth in Tennessee. Very impractical, very impossible, but no less than what the Lord has called us to do.
Thanks for those practical “both-and” examples, William. Proud to serve alongside you and Bro. Randy here in Tennessee. We’re headed in the right direction for sure!
I’ll say again that I think it is a positive thing that state convention executives and workers advocate for their use of CP dollars, their vision in places like this. I appreciate this lengthy comment by the TBC’s Administrative Director. According to their website, he is the go to guy for issues like church financial management, tax issues, housing allowance and the like. This would make him my favorite TBC guy were I in Tennessee. This area is one that is essential to churches and pastors because it deals with important matters on which most pastors and laypeople are underinformed.
On William’s lengthy comment on TBC and the CP division:
1. I appreciate the fact that the TBC doesn’t employ the confusing practice of using labels that disguise what portion of a CP dollar is kept in TN and what is sent to the SBC allocation budget.
2. TN is one of the most aggressive states in moving to a true 50/50 split.
3. Because of the above, I’d make the conjecture (and that without being in touch with many TBC pastors or churches) that churches there that are lukewarm about the TBC and the CP will feel inclined to increase their CP percentages. How much above the present 5.6% is unknowable. I’ve always thought that the likelihood of a significant overall CP percentage increase is low. William calculates the impact of a 25% increase in CP percentages. I’d be shocked if it were that high. We will see.
4. I don’t know of anything any state convention has done or can do to move individual church members to give greater sums to their local church. A healthy economy might motivate people to give more. I highly doubt that state conventions can create any program that influences overall giving.
5. The budget for the TBC available online is too general to get the full picture but unless the TBC is dramatically different than other legacy state coventions it is not structured, either in personnel or budget allocations, to effectively address the bottom line goals of reducing lostness and church growth. The story of all state conventions is that the almost $300 million received and spent annually in the legacy states hasn’t served to reduce overall trends of no growth or slight declines in baptisms and membership.
I’d be interested in what is being done differently in TN to move baptisms to the 50,000 level.
William Maxwell paraphrases my favorite TN Baptist, Adrian Rogers, who said, “Dollars pay bills, not percentages.”
William, Thanks for your kind comments. You and I are more kindred spirits than you know. I was born and reared just the other side of Athens from you in Oglethorpe County. I bleed red and black (with the emphasis on bleeding this year). Come see us in TN and we will discuss how to teach defensive backs to knock down hail marys!
Oglethorpe? That’s where my family comes from. I could almost guarantee that we are related.
Oh My! We had better take this offline before any skeletons in the closet come out. Email me at wmaxwell@tnbaptist.org