Here’s an article I was honored to have published in the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions section of “The Alabama Baptist” this past week. Alabama is not the largest state convention, nor are we the richest state convention. However, we lead all states in both total Cooperative Program giving and per capita Cooperative Program giving. In contrast to the growing popularity of many other missions giving paradigms, the Cooperative Program is a tried and true avenue for supporting the Great Commission. May we continue to do missions right!
In 1988, when Kentucky Fried Chicken said, “We do chicken right,” who could argue? They were not trash talking. They were speaking the truth in love – with generous amounts of grease and sodium thrown in as well.
One may reasonably wonder what it is that we as Southern Baptists “do right.” It is NOT congregational clapping. In 1980, the Go-Go’s recorded “We Got the Beat,” but they clearly never bothered giving it to any of the Southern Baptist congregations where I have ever been privileged to worship and serve!
It is NOT bungee jumping. We may be among the most risk-averse people on the face of the earth. And it is NOT the ability to stay quiet. I know one Southern Baptist who will strike up a conversation with anything that moves.
But there is ONE THING that we as Southern Baptists most definitely “do right.” We do missions right!
In 1925, the Cooperative Program was a stroke of organizational genius mixed with good, old-fashioned sense.
It still is today.
When we give through the Cooperative Program, we do it out of the conviction that there is absolutely no other exercise of Christian stewardship that results in a greater promotion of the Great Commission.
Why is the Cooperative Program the right way to do missions?
1. Churches of all sizes are able to participate. While the largest of our churches can afford to send out missionaries all over the world using their own resources, such an undertaking is beyond the reach of the typical Southern Baptist church. However, through the Cooperative Program, we can send them out together.
2. We are able to broaden our Great Commission focus. Yes, we send missionaries to reach North America and the world for Christ, but the Great Commission also mentions “teaching them to observe all things.” This requires seminaries for the training of ministers and state missionaries to equip and assist pastors and staff members in their work.
3. We learn from the experiences of others. I personally rely on the expertise and experience of missionaries with the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions several times a year for a variety of purposes: evangelistic tools, administrative advice, stewardship resources, leadership ideas and inspiring stories of excellent work.
Our heritage as Baptists is one of autonomy. Our churches make their own decisions and are free to choose the mission strategies they prefer. But we are at our best when we freely choose to work together and generously support the missions mutual fund that is our Cooperative Program. In doing so, we do missions right!
Rick,
Brief, to the point, and you’re exactly right.
Too often some Southern Baptists forget or neglect that we do missions right.
The Cooperative Program is not the only worthy missions program, but it may very well be the best. And it is probably the most comprehensive as well.
David R. Brumbelow
Rick: In 1925, the Cooperative Program was a stroke of organizational genius mixed with good, old-fashioned sense.
It still is today.
bapticus hereticus: And that is why the Convention passed Great Commission Giving?
Perhaps I should rephrase. The logic behind the CP is that of organizational genius plus good, old-fashioned sense. That logic still holds true today, regardless of its current popularity, or lack thereof in certain quarters.
Great Commission Giving is a new metric for measuring missions support invented to award denominational brownie points to churches who give less to CP and more to DYOTP.
While the Do Your Own Thing Program is certainly permissible, since each church possesses autonomy, it seems the SBC messengers considers this course unwise, to say the least. Please note the very same report creating Great Commission Giving to measure DYOTP support also states, repeatedly, that the CP is the preferred and best missions support channel.
This, of course, begs the question, “Why, if a superior missions support channel exists, would I choose to divert my missions dollars away from the superior channel and towards the inferior one, thus reducing my Great Commission effectiveness?”
If Tom Brady is on your Fantasy Team, why in the world would you start Tarvaris Jackson?
I agree. And for a church the size of mine, there is no question which is the “Peyton Manning” (sorry, cannot use Tom Brady in a positive reference) option.
I think that as churches get bigger, they come to believe that they can, in fact, do missions better themselves. If we had a million dollar missions budget, we might be tempted to do the same.
Sideline thought:
All the rest of the Colts are still playing but Peyton Manning isn’t. And they have won how many games at this point?
Is it possible that there is a single-point piece of Baptist cooperation that is the linchpin of our continued shared existence? And are we losing it?
I’m starting to think that the linchpin is something tangible more than doctrinal, but it’s late, I’ve been at the state convention all day, and I’m not processing well. Just pondering that we should have more doctrinal uniformity than we had 30 years ago—but we have less effectiveness. Our agencies, boards, and what-nots should be more focused on Bible-centered ministry and missions because of that uniformity, so there should be fewer concerns about efficiency, but there are more—-and more concerns about how it’s done and other things.
Why is it that we fixed the doctrinal issues only to go into what seems a prolonged decline? There’s something there, but I can’t put my brain on it right now.
Great “sideline” thought, Doug. And while we’re using so many football metaphors, let me suggest a football related answer to your excellent probing question:
“Is it possible that there is a single-point piece of Baptist cooperation that is the linchpin of our continued shared existence? And are we losing it?”
Yes and yes. The answer is found in the movie “Jerry Maguire.” (Hint: It’s not “You had me at hello.”)
Doug: … we should have more doctrinal uniformity than we had 30 years ago—but we have less effectiveness.
bapticus hereticus: Statistically, that would be a negative relationship, but unknown is its level of significance. Conceptually, if baptist are touted for the importance of autonomy, would a large emphasis on uniformity create somewhat of a problem? Are the data talking?
The CP is the main reason I have remained a Southern Baptist. Other denominations have doctrinal integrity and fellowship, etc. But through the CP, my small Iowa church can be a part of a vast (and even sometimes effective!) missionary force.
Count me in as a CP guy!
Good article, Rick. Alabama is perhaps the strongest giver to SBC causes among the larger state conventions.
Forgive me…but…why do you think the CP percentages have been declining for decades?
Thanks, and I appreciate all your plodding, if I have the right William.
To answer your question, please forgive the upcoming pun, but I believe the “conventional” wisdom is that CP giving has declined because Pastors and other church leaders are disenchanted with alleged denominational bureaucracy and refuse to support with their dollars such a wasteful system.
I consider that argument a broken piece of earthenware* primarily because the CP percentages started declining prior to any real concern over denominational inefficiencies. Also, most of the churches where I have served develop their budgets by a committee of laypersons who are largely unconcerned with denominational politics.
Therefore, let me float a few theories which, in combination, I believe can help explain the declining pie slice many churches are now giving through the Cooperative Program.
(1) Less denominational loyalty among many new church starts–not only in the name they put on the sign, but also in their operations and sense of (am I allowed to use the “I” word?…) identity. Those who give strongly through the CP know who I mean when I say Lottie, Annie, Herschel and Adrian. If the churches closing their doors were strongly CP but the churches opening their doors are not, then Houston is not the only one who has a problem. Nashville (or is it Louisville?) has a problem as well.
(2) Practical local church overhead budgeting issues are driving this more than we would like to admit. Many of our church buildings are very old and require extensive and expensive repairs or even replacement. Utility costs, as a percentage of budget, have risen in the church I serve, over the past decade, from 7% to 12%. The pressures to maintain property are even greater among the megachurches whose multimillion dollar buildings require staggering maintenance budgets. Baptists write balanced budgets, at least until we send them to Washington. If electricity goes up, something must go down.
(3) Another factor would be the migration of our total Baptist membership from rural, small city and large neighborhood churches to the megachurches. As our Baptist tithers transfer their letters from old-fashioned Ten Percent CP Giving Churches to modern, architecturally amazing Two Percent CP Giving Churches, the CP takes an 8% hit. Thus, as we consolidate our members in fewer, larger churches who are forced to give less through the CP in order to pay for the Baptist Majal, there is simply less money available for the missionaries.
These are only a few of the issues I believe are putting pressure on the Cooperative Program today. In 1925, our church budgets looked very different, our denominational loyalty was high, and we simply did not have megachurches sucking up ten percent CP givers and turning them into two percent CP givers.
__________________________
* A broken piece of earthenware is, of course, a crock.
Every year, year after year, there is a steady stream of promotional articles that say how wonderful the CP is. Yet the decline continues.
I had thought that we had a consultant and a ‘consortium’ working on something new. Now would be a good time to try it.
I agree. We do missions right except for the step-child we often starve – the Local Baptist Association.
You’re right, Jim. Somewhere along the way, somebody made a decision about which ministries are included in CP and which are not. I will always wonder why our local associations are treated differently with regard to CP than our state conventions.
I also wonder why we cannot bring Crisis Pregnancy Centers into the umbrella of the Cooperative Program. However, I realize such an action would only further dilute already diminishing CP funds.
The Local Baptist Association is the Oldest, Closest and should be the most significant entity beyond the local church. It is on the front lines 24/7 and knows it’s operational area better than any Convention can.