Consider me to have a bit of a deficit in denominational nostalgia. I don’t apologize for it.
A lament heard often in our SBC circles is about the halcyon days of ten percent Cooperative Program giving, the fictional harmony among various groups that made up the SBC back then. That lament includes despair for the days of ever growing statistical measures, chiefly money, that gave state conventions and the other SBC entities the optimism and verve to engage on endless staff hiring sprees, build magnificent buildings, and dream of ever greater sums to fund denominational dreams.
The ten percent days are a generation and a half in the past and few people among us under the age of fifty have a memory of such levels. Perhaps that is why some SBC graybeards among us get a glazed over look and begin a wistful chant that begins with, “If SBC churches gave an average of ten percent to the Cooperative Program like we used to, we could…”
Better to leave that brother alone in his requiem than to administer a dose of reality.
But I’m one of those who wishes for the clean and simple approach to SBC international missions that was (at least to my limited, youthful understanding of the time) present 35 years ago:
- Churches gave heavily to the CP, over ten percent on average of their undesignated offerings.
- The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering was universally promoted in churches each year, yielding growing sums.
- Individuals felt a call to serve overseas, responded, were appointed, and spent a lifetime serving.
- Travel to distant places was out of reach of the average church member, so energy and funds were unlikely to be spent on short term mission trips that had limited value and little overall direction and strategy for reaching the world.
Things have gotten rather complex.
- The CP has steadily declined and accounts for less than one-third of our International Mission Board’s budget.
- The LMCO has been stagnant for years, actually declining in real dollars.
- After continuing to spend as if revenues would suddenly and permanently surge by tens of millions, the IMB is on a plan to severely pare down missionaries and support staff.
- Churches spend tens of millions on short term missions, a routine budget item that looks like just another program, and less on support of IMB through CP and the LMCO.
- SBC churches are more open than ever to an endless stream of parachurch organizations, independent mission lone rangers, and alternative, non-SBC, mission sending agencies.
- In some cases IMB has an unusual arrangement in which they work directly with some SBC churches to facilitate those churches own personnel in certain mission endeavors.
- The IMB is proposing “partially funded missionaries” raising questions about how the unfunded portion will be funded. The obvious question about whether or not SBC churches will be approached for direct funding of the remainder has yet to be answered.
- Many churches eschew the LMCO in favor of a generic global mission offering, only a portion of which might be forwarded to the IMB.
- Churches have created funding programs for retiring missionaries who are taking the IMB voluntary retirement incentives and remaining on the field. Some of these are devoting a portion of the LMCO to this purpose, direct funding of retired IMB personnel.
- Individuals have declared their intent to take what they would have given to the LMCO and send it directly to a ‘retiring’ IMB worker.
- At least one organization is utilizing the term “Lottie” in promoting the above.
This is complicated to think about. Give me a minute to indulge my own wistful reminiscence of previous, simpler days.
OK, I’m over it.
If I were beginning as a pastor in 2015 (rather than in 1982) here’s how I think I would look at and prioritize things:
- I’d try and lead my church to 5% or greater Cooperative Program giving. That’s about average. Above average would be good but below would be unacceptable.
- I’d do my best to give heavily to Lottie Moon, perhaps by building into the church budget some level of monthly LMCO giving, that in addition to the heavy emphasis at Christmas for the LMCO as an ‘over and above’ offering.
- I’d communicate as best I could to the congregation why IMB is cutting numbers and why our response should be to step up our LMCO giving. I’m not sure doubling the offering would be the best goal but I would point out that some churches are attempting just that.
- I’d attempt to stave off the inevitable requests for independent missionary funding, some friend/relative of a member, and exclusively support the global strategy of our own IMB.
- I’d do short term missions as long as they folded in with IMB strategy and did not negatively impact regular CP or LMCO giving.
- I’d presume that the IMB’s announced strategy of utilizing fully funded, partially funded, and unfunded overseas missions personnel is worthy of support but also of scrutiny.
- I’d think long and hard before I acquiesced to any IMB program that had candidates making direct, personal appeals to churches for dedicated funding.
I think I’m solid in asserting that we will never go back to past systems in SBC international missions.
I see nothing that will restore the Cooperative Program to former, double-digit percentage levels of the past.
I doubt those who respond to a call to overseas missions in the 21st century will have as long an average tenure overseas as previous generations of IMB workers.
I suspect that strategies will be employed that shift personnel to and from certain regions of the world and to and from certain people groups.
While I may be flummoxed by all of the above, I remain certain that our International Mission Board is worthy of our highest level of support. I would be preparing my church for the most vigorous 2015 LMCO promotion that I could get away with.
The SBC is a vast, noisy, rambunctious herd of independent operators, proudly so, which leads me to ask, “How do you look at all this?”
The only way we can increase IMB funding, which I think we should until Jesus comes, is to DRASTICALLY rethink what the SBC is. There is a lot of redundance in the SBC, with SBC entities, State Conventions, local Associations and even SBC megachurches competing with one another for attention, $$ and personnel. With our polity it is virtually impossible to dictate what State Conventions, local Associations or churches can do. SO we need to dismantle the SBC. How? like this:
1) Get rid of NAMB. I am not advocating combining it with IMB. Just get rid of it. As a local pastor I am SO weary of NAMB’s top-down focus on whatever. I really do not believe they do a better job of church planting than State conventions and ASsociations can do. And their forced intervention into Disaster Relief (a state convention invention and NOW compassion ministries?! needs to stop). Associations, Churches and State conventions must jump hopops to get their help. Who put them in charge of where churches are needed? Why is STL wallowing in CP $$ and Joplin, MO gets nothing?
2) Eliminate any tie with Lifeway. Let them compete as a for profit bookstore, which is really what they are. BUT, reinstitute a ‘SS Board’ to create materials to be ordered via phone/internet designed for SBC churches vs the general evangelical community.
3) Get rid of the ERLC and let them compete with Focus on the Family, AFA and other political/moral action groups. The ERLC contributes nothing to the ability of churches to advance the KoG.
4) Privatize all but two seminaries. Let the rest of them compete with other evangelical seminaries. They are all fine institutions. But we just do not need to fund them all. They are pushing out way too many SBC pastors creating such a glut in the market that pastors over 50 are largely unwanted.
5) Get rid of everything else except the Executive Board which could also be reduced.
The SBC is losing support because it has become too overreaching making more and more demands on the local church and acting like they are smarter than everyone else. They do not have to deal with the same financial realities and limitations churches do. And they have become TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE to the local church (sound familiar?)
With these changes, IMB funding could be greatly increased. I know many will object. But isn’t international missions funding why the SBC was formed to begin with? If we are brave enough to cut the head off the monster that has evolved and get back to our roots SBC churches will be far better off and the Kingdom of God will have the freedom to advance again.
1)Lifeway gets no money from the CP.
2)Which 2 seminaries? “Way too many pastors”, “a glut in the market” seems like you have a strong bias against the calling and equipping of young pastors.
I choose Southwestern and Southern. …you asked! State Conventions can ‘adopt’ the others if they want to or let them compete with other evangelical seminaries for students. They are not even totally seminaries any more. They are now also colleges competing with Baptist state colleges.
I am all for young men called of God to be equipped to pastor. But ask Seminary placement offices what percentage of their graduates actually find a church to pastor….the number of churches in our convention is not growing rapidly enough to keep up with the number of seminary graduates….Most grads want to go to urban ‘hip’ churches. Good luck to them if they get called to a 120 in attendance country church in a town of 3,000. Plus churches do not hold the seminary degree in as high of esteem as they used to adding to the number of potential pastoral candidates. I know l Lifeway receives no Coop Pgm $$. But they do get a lot of our church’s $$ because of their high prices. I believe an old-fashioned SS Board type org with no brick and mortar stores could produce SS material and other material churches need and want much cheaper than Lifeway does….and they will be more uniquely Southern Baptist.
FYI: Lifeway has sold their downtown Nashville campus for $125 million. http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/real-estate/2015/11/24/lifeways-15-acre-downtown-campus-sold/76342092/
With the $125 million, they could very easily be spun off as a for profit company as you have suggested. However, since they are not going that route, the question comes up, “What will be done with that $125 million?”
Obviously, some portion will be spent on their new HQ. They are looking at several sites in downtown Nashville for a smaller facility. However, they won’t spend the majority of that $125 million, so will they donate some of the excess to the IMB and or the Cooperative Program?
I’m not saying how they should disperse their funds, but it does bring up the question.
I like some of your thoughts but will save those discussions for later. Your idea is to alienate about every SBC constituent group and move forward from there. Won’t work at your scale but all of the ideas are sound at a lesser degree.
Immediate help for IMB will come from elevating IMB in church priorities.
Probably true…but the SBC is a dino that is becoming a millstone. To elevate the IMB and get them more $$ Lottie Moon is the only vehicle we have….perhaps asking churches to give their extra 1% directly to the IMB vs through the Cooperative Pgm? I know that will sound radical too. But today in MO, if I give $100 to the Coop pgm only $40 or so goes to the SBC and perhaps $10 of that goest to the IMB? Increasing Coop pgm giving only creates more SBC problems by giving other entities more $$ to squander in our name.
Ah, an SBCer who knows the math and makes the logical and most efficient choices. I like it.
2 Reactions to Allen’s Post:
1. “Oooh, I like this guy!”
2. “William is right, It will never happen.”
I say, with all the immigrants coming in now, we have our hands full evangelizing those in our own backyard, let alone going out into the world to try and evangelize them. What provision is being made to evangelize the incoming immigrants/refugees? It seems to me there is a big challenge busing through the Catholic and Muslim monoliths.
William, as always, I like your thinking. Many church mission trips are really missio-tourism. Mission trips can be useful on the foreign field, but many are not. (I write from the perspective of a retired IMB missionary.) My wife spoke at a missions conference held by a big SBC church. She told me that the IMB received no priority or extra recognition or promotion. The IMB was just one of 20 missions organizations that the church supported. This absolutely was not the case when my wife and I were appointed by the FMB in 1975. Sometimes I feel like Rip van Winkle. I wake up and do not recognize the SBC world I live in. Thirty years ago the average tenure (time served) for an IMB missionary was 20 years. Now it is 9 years. These numbers do not take into account the many missionaries about to retire due the Voluntary Retirement Incentive of the IMB.
One point on short term trips: When IMB appointees are asked “how many would say they were there as a result of a short term trip”, at least at this last appointment group it was about 90%. That’s unofficial just looking around the room. So I do see a benefit to short term trips, although I realize most M’s dont like them. Also I write from a M pastor perspective. Ours are not Mission Tours. We target UPG’s in places few want to go, so there are some churches out there seeking to fulfill the GC to the ethnos of the world. I know of other churches doing the same.
I attend a small SBC affiliated church in California. Founded and grew during the post WWII baby boom, declining since the early 1980s, now by God’s grace experiencing a revitalization. We are discussing our future affiliation with the SBC with respect to missions giving. We give a small percentage to the CP. Our new pastor is committed to missions, particularly unreached people groups. He supports New Tribes Missions due to their focus on unreached people groups.
We are not against the CP or the IMB, but we are interested in supporting missions in the best way we can, and it looks like our focus will be unreached people groups. Question: How much of IMB’s resources are devoted to unreached people groups? I’ll be asking this question of IMB this as well.
Thank you for this important discussion.
Could you point me to information which would
Better to ask them. They will answer. Definitions matter in UPGs. I’m sure you will find considerable resources and personnel working with UPG.
Check this article on IMB’s site. It deals with an CA church involved with a UPG in Mexico: http://stories.imb.org/americas/stories/view/you-and-your-church-can-take-the-gospel-to-the-ends-of-the-earth?cid=82836
Great thoughts, William.
I agree with you 100% on #6.
I’ve spent time as both an IMB missionary and an independent missionary in the Philippines.
The IMB takes great care of its missionaries, covering so many things beyond the basic salary (medical, travel, education for children, and the list goes on). The trade-off is you are expected to follow their directives for your ministry (this includes ministry strategy, where you live, etc.).
Here’s a good example: the IMB had a few people teaching seminary at the seminary in Baguio when I first arrived in the Philippines (2002). Within a few years all of these men and women were re-assigned. Something similar happened to the ministry I was involved with (Manila college students).
I’m not going to argue either way on these decisions–it is water under the bridge. But I’m sure most (or all) of the missionaries would have stayed with their assignments if they were self-supported and able to make their own ministry decisions.
This is why I’m unsure of how partially funded or unfunded missionaries would work. But I’ll keep an open mind once this plan is presented.
To follow up on Mark Terry’s comment, several years ago I spoke to a missionary who was invited to Charles Stanley’s church while he was SBC president. It was a mission’s conference with over 30 missionaries invited. He and his wife were the only IMB missionaries there and they were only allowed to speak to one Sunday School class. Others were featured in the main service. This is a pattern than has been going on in many of the super churches for years. In recent years we have stopped sending missionaries to the World Mission Conferences where we would go to an association and speak at many churches. Now we send a big group of missionaries one big church and ignore the smaller churches. Is it any wonder giving to missions has decreased.
Kevin, there was a time when we on the field had more say in how we were assigned. That all changed under Jerry Rankin. People far from the field determine where we go and what the priorities are. The less knowledge they have of the field situation it seems the more influence they have on field decisions. It seems that style of leadership is increasing even more today.
Point well made. The IMB is becoming more and more faceless…IMB missionaries on furlough need to be more proactive about getting an audience with more churches of all sizes.
Ron you are not the first person I’ve heard this from (re: field missionaries having more say in the past).
Ron, small churches have no trouble getting a missionary to come speak to their church if they desire to have one. We are a small church of less than 100. We have a relationship with an IMB missionary who was in our church last December. I contacted IMB a couple months ago and we are having another missionary in our church this December. Churches can’t sit back and complain about not having missionaries come speak if they are not being proactive about inviting them to come.
“Perhaps that is why some SBC graybeards among us get a glazed over look and begin a wistful chant that begins with, “If SBC churches gave an average of ten percent to the Cooperative Program like we used to, we could…”
Better to leave that brother alone in his requiem than to administer a dose of reality.”
William, when you say such things as the quote above, you are doing some things I do not think you intend to do. 1) You are stating that those who encourage greater CP giving are ignorant of reality, which of course is not true, 2) you are implying that only the old would hold such a view – again untrue, 3) you are denigrating or at least marginalizing fellow believers who are merely engaging in exhortation, and 4) you are implying that you are qualified to administer doses of reality. Brother, the things being discussed are very serious subjects susceptible to different views and opinions. You will gather more respect for your positions by showing more love and respect for other members of the body.
I have said, and will continue to say, almost exactly what is said in the very first paragraph in the quote above. I have always added that if the churches just continued to give what they are giving, without any increase at all, but if church members would also tithe, we would have FIVE TIMES what we have now for ministry. I am aware of reality. The reality is that we are individually selfish and disobedient. The reality is that churches are discussing the shortcomings of CP to the exclusion of recognizing its power. If I concentrate on my shortcomings, I will miss what God wants to do through me.
By concentrating on what is wrong with the Cooperative Program, we are destroying the ONLY vehicle that once did so well in supplying the largest fully-provisioned evangelical mission force in the world. I firmly believe (and in doing so understand that others will not) that depending solely on the LMCO to rectify the current crisis will HARM the IMB in the long run. The LMCO must be promoted every year, but it only does demonstrably better in times of extremis. It must be retained, certainly, but so must the CP, even if all anyone cares about is the IMB’s work (and I am not in that crowd – I believe all our ministries have merit, though not equal merit, but we prioritize our ministries pretty well by allocation).
Another point about the LMCO is that it is a holdover from the days of direct support (pre-CP) and was always a seasonal push to “do more” but in that same “direct individual giving” way. Direct support of all kinds did not work. It carried our mission boards to the brink of bankruptcy in that pre-1925 era. Ask any independent Baptist missionary whether direct giving works. They will tell you that IT DOES NOT. It was that “wasteful” CP thing that solved all that. And it continued to solve it until the devil somehow convinced us to start concentrating on all of its “shortcomings.”
As for where our current average is and where a church should aim in their CP support percentage, lets agree that that is a completely subjective decision best guided by the Holy Spirit. But consider this – if your child said “Dad, where should I aim in my schoolwork?” I would never respond “Well, what is the average? Shoot for that or a little better.” Nothing praiseworthy about that! But the BETTER argument against being average in CP giving is that being average does not help the IMB at all! It keeps us where we are. It does not move the needle.
And finally, with regard to the argument that CP giving is wasteful because “so little gets to the IMB” I would make the point that in the “halcyon days” when our missionary counts were increasing every year toward the record height, the states were receiving two-thirds of ever CP dollar . . . and using it for ministry, though not for IMB ministry. They were using it for student ministry, for instance, and many of those students became IMBers. I know.
Brothers and sisters, tithe, then shoot for doubling your church’s CP giving AND doubling your individual LMCO giving (above the tithe) and then go beyond that to support worthy additional missions and ministries. This is not a guilt trip, it is a joy journey. Give hilariously. God will bless it.
Again, my church is a 10% CP church with about 1,100 attending and giving about $5M a year, with additional gifts through the LMCO totaling around $300K. We have missions giving which goes way beyond those figures. Why did we stop at 10%? Because we are led to add to our support of some SBC ministries as well as support other non-SBC ministries, but we could not do so in good conscience at the expense of our state convention and SBC ministries.
PR, I always appreciate your responses. Please remember that this is an opinion blog. Mine may be accepted or rejected. I think I have a decent grasp of the data and the system but if you think I am missing something critical, I’m all ears. At my age, I have no interest in anything other than SBC missions. I’d like to see them thrive for generations.
I’ve seen and heard so many (mostly) state convention staffers and leaders get into the “if only we gave to the CP like we used to” mode that I feel that my paragraph above is an accurate representation of what is happening. Such is not disrespectful. Serious, sober, sensible SBC leaders do a good job of exhorting for a CP increase without doing this, Frank Page chief among them. As a pastor, it was almost an insult to be assailed by denominational employees whose main point was that ‘we don’t’ (meaning ‘you don’t) give like we used to. Many of the wistful, nostalgic brethren have no new ideas for advancing SBC missions other than (a) give more money, and (b) give like we did two generations ago. That approach hasn’t worked. It’s DOA now and forever.
We’ve had this discussion before. I respect your position. But if we have a crisis in international missions the CP is not a realistic solution. It is seen as a 20th century mostly state convention funding scheme. These same state conventions are recalibrating to manage dropping church support levels and at the same time furiously searching for relevance in 2015, for something, anything that will engage their churches.
Are we not already educating enough potential IMB workers at six seminaries, plus the several others that SBC members and churches support? Double the CP and states suck up the majority of that money. Makes no sense at all. Continuing to fuel IMB through the direct offering is difficult. Returning IMB to 50% or greater of CP support is vastly more difficult.
I think the present level of CP giving, 5-6% is generous for our states and national entities. That makes me a CP supporter. Always have been.
If we have a crisis in international missions giving through the local church is not a realistic solution. It is seen as a 1st century mostly local ministry funding scheme. These same churches are recalibrating to manage dropping member support levels and at the same time furiously searching for relevance in 2015, for something, anything that will engage their members.
Are we not already educating enough potential IMB workers at all these Sunday Schools, plus the several other discipleship ministries that Christians support? Increase your offerings to your church and church ministries suck up the majority of that money. Makes no sense at all. Continuing to fuel IMB through the direct offering is difficult. Returning IMB to 50% or greater of local church offerings is vastly more difficult.
Not your best stuff, Bart. You usually have no difficulty in addressing the relevant issues in any particular discussion…but everyone gets to take a few days off.
It’s sarcasm, but it is designed to make a salient point: None of your arguments against the Cooperative Program actually amount to any good reason to abandon it. All of them apply equally well to things that none of us are prepared to abandon.
If someone comes up with something better, I’ll consider it. But the “let’s abandon the CP movement” is not a tide I want to see rising.
I think I’m with Bart on this one.
We may be dwindling, but the only way the average stays at 5.5 is if some of us aspire to go a LOT higher. We can’t really join the increase right now, but I’m sticking with 12%.
I’ve been in ministry for nearly 3 and a half decades and this church gives the LEAST of the churches I’ve served to CP – at 12%. I’d love to see us give more, but my astronomical salary prevents it.
Still, I’m not going to shoot for mediocre, William.
FBC Farmersville is going up from 10% to 11% in 2016.
Maybe you and Dave could find someone who argues that the CP should be abandoned. After that, find any SBC leader who is planning for the future of their entity by projecting a significant CP increase. Let me know what you come up with.
Sarcasm is fine, especially when one doesn’t want to bother with an argument. I do it sometimes myself.
The closest I’ve come here to arguing “against” the CP is asserting that solving the IMB crisis by raising CP giving is a bridge too far. It would take voodoo economics to get the numbers needed.
I’ve never criticized a church for above average CP giving and
I commend Dave for his.
I commend Bart (for upping his %) and Dave for more than double the CP average. I’d vote for either of you for something.
Our Church(Bethel Baptist Church) gives 20% to the CP. So, I don’t think we will be raising ours either. But, I most certainly do hope that our giving will go up from our offerings going up!
It’s time for Lottie Moon giving again. I hope every church is about to take up a record offering! Sadly, I’m afraid that some SB churches don’t even know what Lottie is about; not really.
David
Nathan, to answer your question, as of six months ago, 68% of our IMB missionaries worked with Unreached People Groups, and 75% of the requests for new missionaries were for missionaries to go and work with UPGs. Now, the 68% statistic will probably change because of the 600-800 missionaries who have accepted the early retirement offer the IMB made.
Terry, thank you for this information.
A couple of thoughts from a Southern Baptist millennial:
1. My husband and I are currently in the process to be appointed as IMB missionaries in the North Africa/Middle East region. We met in the Middle East where we were both serving 2 year terms (I was a journeyman and he was sent through his SBC home church). The call on our lives to reach Muslims for Christ in that part of the world is not short term. So while your comment that many of our upcoming IMB missionaries will not serve as long as their predecessors may be partly true- have a little faith in us. Because there are many of us who intend to spend the duration of our lives overseas.
2. It saddens me that the IMB has to compete with so many other sending organizations for the prayers and funds of Southern Baptists. With that being said, I do think it is possible to send missionaries straight from our churches. My husband moved overseas and taught in a local Arab school. His home church paid for his plane ticket, but he lived on the wages that he made teaching. Perhaps this is partly what Platt means when he speaks of sending countless missionaries overseas.
3. Our experience through our appointment process has been that the IMB is HEAVILY focusing on UPGs. Early in the process, they send everyone to a missions expo and during that time they more or less told us they were only sending new folks to fill positions in areas they considered to be most strategic in reaching unreached peoples. I hope that is reassuring to those with questions.
4. My husband and I teach our college bible study and after the VRI announcement, we spent an entire evening talking about IMB missions, the CP and the Lottie Moon Christmas offering. Of 17 home grown Southern Baptist college students, not a single one of them knew what the Cooperative Program was or how it works to fund missions. So that was a little depressing…
I hope your appointment process is smooth and service long and fruitful.
I know of no outfit that has a more thorough appointment process than IMB and I trust them to do this task. That average worker tenure is much lower than in previous years says nothing about any specific individual. The shorter tenure is just one of many facts that we have to wrestle with these days.
Since we’re going down this road, let me add something. In Bart’s state (TX) the newer state convention cleared the decks of a lot of accumulated funding constituencies and started semi-fresh and keeps only a minority share of CP revenues. In Dave’s state (IA) the state is far from the strength numerically of the legacy southern state conventions and just cut their CP percentages to 50/50 with the Executive Committee.
For most (fact check me here) Southern Baptists a CP increase means putting most, about 2/3ds of the money in their legacy state convention, something that manifestly hasn’t generated a lot of enthusiasm. That money goes to a lot of good things nonetheless but if legacy institutions and mostly centralized staff positions represent the priorities of the churches of such states it isn’t statistically evident.
It’s true—it’s much easier to be happy about the CP when you’re in the SBTC.
But whenever this conversation arises, I always make it a point to note this: A state convention’s budget—including the in-state / beyond-the-state split—is set by a vote in the convention’s annual meeting. If the churches who wanted a better split would organize and go to the meeting, they could change the split. There’s absolutely nothing (but apathy) to prevent that from happening.
And I always point out that the path of least resistance, clearly preferable to individuals who have concluded that their state convention is under the control of an oligarchy of vested interest and their allies, is to simply put some of their mission dollars elsewhere.
In your state the pathway was to jettison the entire legacy convention and start over.
SC leaders can always blame critics for their failure to propose and achieve desired changes. The ‘losers’ can shrug and decrease CP giving. Thankfully, some SC leaders recognize that their future depends on more than winning annual session votes.
In regard to my OP and the statement that increasing then CP isn’t a solution to the IMB crisis, since SCs suck up most of a CP dollar, and SC support in many conventions is not enthusiastic to start with, promoting large CP increases is not a sensible solution.
It is only not a sensible solution…
1. …if one presumes that going back to the wild west will add no costs in terms of greater fundraising competition. But this is a nonsensical assumption to make. The great contribution to Southern Baptist efficiency that the CP made is that entities don’t have to pester churches continually in order to raise funds entity-by-entity. Those fundraising events and fundraising personnel cost money. Yes, every entity does a LITTLE of that now, but when you look at the fact that, industry-wide, it is commonplace for organizations to spend more than 30% of their budgets for fundraising, you start to get the picture. Get ready for your LMCO funds to start putting David Platt on your living room TV, not because David Platt is a bad guy, but because there’s little alternative to spending vast sums of money on fundraising when you lose the spirit of cooperative giving.
2. …if one presumes that IMB has no need of the other agencies in the SBC constellation. But that’s a patently false assumption. Who provides theological training for missionaries? Not the IMB. Out of what context are missionaries called to missions? Call it “local church” if you want, but the facts tell us otherwise: State convention ministries like Falls Creek Baptist Encampment and educational institutions like the seminaries are the venue at which God calls more missionaries into service than anywhere else. A kid surrenders to missions at summer youth camp and we tend to count that as an accomplishment of the local church that drove said kid out to camp, but who provided the campground, decided the theme, wrote the curriculum, selected the speaker, had missionaries present, etc.? Generally not the local church. Foolishly simplistic is the approach that discards everything else just to fund the IMB. End result: fewer of those IMB dollars will go to the field as the IMB scrambles to replace all of the services that it has been receiving for free from its sister entities.
3. …if one presumes that all SBC international missions are done through the IMB. But the IMB pulled out of educational ministries and health-care ministries under Jerry Rankin. Guess who’s doing the educational ministries today? The SBC seminaries. This Arkansas boy doesn’t have enough fingers and toes to be able to count the number of international seminaries that are being facilitated through SWBTS’s Global Theological Innovations program, for example. I always have a bit of whiplash when I see people argue for a new missionary modality of equipping national ministers and laypeople and then turn around and suggest direct funding just to the IMB. The seminaries are doing very impressive work at empowering national educational institutions to educate and equip national believers to do missionary work at a fraction of the cost of sending an American overseas to do the work. Investing in the SBC seminaries IS investing in SBC international missions.
4. …if one presumes that all of the “waste” and “mismanagement” in the CP takes place somewhere other than the IMB, such that bypassing the rest of the SBC constellation and dealing directly with the IMB alone amounts to the elimination of all inefficiencies. How such a view can be reconciled with this year’s news is beyond me.
5. …if one presumes that the raising of funds for local ministries is utterly and entirely dissimilar to the raising of funds for global missions. Guess what: Every individual member doesn’t get a say in how his or her contributions are spent at your local church. The church votes, and everyone agrees, having had a fair opportunity to participate in the process, to abide by the results. If that’s a bad system at the SBC level, it’s a bad system at the local church level. May all of those who advocate for something different at the SBC level (or the state convention level) be consistent and honest when they tell their church members how things really ought to work in their local churches.
So, yes, if one has decided just to advance the IMB as an institution alone, then perhaps the CP is a non-starter. If, however, your objective is for Southern Baptist churches to be empowered to do more than ever before to obey Jesus’ Great Commission, then the CP is the ONLY sensible solution, just as we’ve all discovered the cooperative giving rather than designated giving is the only sensible solution in our local churches.
What Bart said!
My favorite Bart Barber comment ever. He wins the internet for a day!
I agree with Bart that the reason the shift to 50% that many SCs say they want is our desire not to make the waves that would make it happen more quickly. But I really do not know if that is enough. Perhaps the CP does need to be abandoned and replaced with direct % giving to the SC, the SBC and whatever SBC entity is near and dear to the heart of the church. This puts the church more in charge of who deserves their $$. It also allows churches to diversify their missions $$ giving the emphasis they feel the best about. With CP faceless administrators working with a nominal input from elected trustees make all the spending decisions. With more direct giving churches are in charge again and their thoughts and opinions will once again matter. We really do need to do something drastic to save more missions giving from being gobbled up totally by local church financial concerns now and especially in the future.
Just some facts to add as you make your assessments.
The SBTC was not created so much as a response to CP allocation that was deemed unacceptable. It was created more because of a sense of doctrinal slippage in the BGCT.
Even with the BGCT taking a HUGE percentage of the contributed CP before and after the SBTC was created, and the SBTC giving a HUGE percentage to the SBC after it was created, it was not until 2-3 years ago that the IMB got more from the BGCT contributions through the CP than it did from the SBTC. This illustrates that the allocation is not as important as the church contributions. I know that is sort of a DUH, but it is often an overlooked fact. If given the choice, anyone would choose getting 12% of $30M over getting 55% of $4M.
The faceless administrators would still be as faceless if contributions were made directly to preferred entities, and those administrators would still have whatever relationships with their boards (close or distant) that they have now. If what was meant was that giving direct to the missionaries would be better than giving to their sponsor entity, well, that is just independent Baptist methodology which has proven itself unviable.
I agree that 2/3 going to the state convention is now under the spotlight and deemed inappropriate by many. I am not sure that at 50/50 the dissatisfaction with state work would be eradicated. But Bart is correct. Those who approve the funding of state ministries come from Southern Baptist churches all over each state . . . the same churches that send messengers to the SBC.
Now my opinion – I think it much more productive to talk about specific ministries than it is to lump them together as “state work” or “national work”. It is easy to malign a generality while praising a specific. All the talk now is about a specific “national work” – the IMB. One thing we could do would be to turn our attentions to each individual ministry we fund at the state or national level. Then we Southern Baptists could aim to unfund or more greatly fund specific ministries. But wait ! We already do that. Those discussions already occur, and those decisions are already made, not by administrators but by representative boards. Those who are involved believe that the state and national ministries are, for the most part, proportioned and prioritized pretty well, and needful. Anyone not involved might find it easy to disparage from afar, or presume things as true that aren’t or vice versa, but life is not really as simple as they might think.
I have my own biases, of course, just like anyone else. For instance, as I have said elsewhere, I dislike throwing undesignated money at college administrations for application as they see fit. I would much prefer that those funds be used on campuses in ministries that are overseen and expected to produce fruit (conversions, Christian maturity, etc.). And if or when I get put on a board, or have some influence with someone who is, I will use my influence toward that end. But I cannot let that dissatisfaction move me to bypass all state ministry.
I understand only too well how some funding decisions are affected by the sinful nature – e.g. how an alum might vote to continue to fund his alma mater without caring whether the money is put into ministry – but there is just no getting away from that. The history of direct funding of missionaries contains enough instances of misapplication and misappropriation to show it is no better. So the issue for me is not which method is purer, but rather which method yield more resources. For a host of reasons, I think CP has proven it has better potential to actually provide sufficient, sustained support, despite all its failings and inadequacies. If some of the logic against CP was employed in the local church, people would be designating their tithes to the youth mission trip and the choir. Nothing would get done and the church would fold.
I will sum up this way. I trust the system, but not because it is flawless. I trust it because it works best. The Army is notorious for its waste and dysfunction. So is government. But who wants to defend America with a directly funded bunch of vigilantes or uncoordinated militias? As Southern Baptists, our system is cooperation in funding, representative board governance, ministry assignment, tactical initiative and planning by entities, deployment and mission operation and support (which process would not include throwing money at institutions – my point above, but not a good enough point to jettison the system).
I would not want to fund individual missionaries instead of a credible and experienced missions board like the IMB. The ONLY exception I might be willing to make is a person called to missions from our own church who may or may not go through the IMB.
I really do see the CP as a great thing. I have not always been a Southern Baptist. When I learned as a Baptist layman how the CP worked it made a lot of sense to me. It still does. But I believe it needs to be fine tuned, just like the SBC needs to be pared down and the % of CP given to the IMB and other SBC entities needs to be reexamined for the 21st century. This is my biggest point CHURCHES NEED to be more in control than they are now. …AND please do not tell me to start going to the SBC so I can voice my concerns or influence future direction. If I went to the SBC speaking for 1,000 churches I wold not even be allowed to make a motion. The SBC needs to be changed BACK to a bottom up org. Ever since the conservative resurgence it has been far more of a top down structure with the group in charge not even elected. That may have been necessary to get us back to the Bible and stay there. BUT NOW, since that issue is resolved, we need to do WHATEVER our modern technology allows to get more churches and church leaders more involved than ever before. IF WE DO NOT, the slow erosion of our denomination will continue. DONE! Thanks for a forum to share my concerns.
The TN Baptist Convention is moving towards a 50/50 split. It will take a few years to get there, but we are moving that way.
In my Church I tell the new members in our NewMembers Class about the CP, and what our church gives. I stress to the that 20 cents out of every dollar they put in the offering plate goes to support missionaries. And, that our church gives more than that…to support other mission work. I think it is really important to educate our people in the pews about the CP.
David
In a discussion among CP supporters one, while pondering the complicated world of SBC international missions, says that the IMB crisis will not be fixed by promoting a CP increase plan. Another says that it will. In another generation he may prove me wrong.
We’ve always had a dual funding system: societal and CP. Both have yielded declining portions of SBC church budgets for some years, although the former has declined slightly slower. I favor continuing the system we have had for the last 90 years.