Since no Southern Baptist church is forced to give to our wonderful, common, funding mechanism the Cooperative Program, how helpful is it to classify any church’s percentage CP giving as fully cooperative or less than fully cooperative and more of an indicator of societal giving? My view is that in isolation, using a church’s CP percentage as a measure of their cooperativeness or of their Southernbaptistness is ultimately harmful.
Randy Adams, the Executive Director of the SBC state convention known as the Northwest Baptist Convention, an area covering Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho, is the latest to weigh in on current SBC matters with…
Who Should Lead Southern Baptists?
Neither Ken Hemphill nor J. D. Greear are mentioned in his article but it clearly points to the former as the one who should lead Southern Baptists. Fine. Denominational leaders may certainly endorse candidates obliquely or directly. I have no problem with that. But it is the principle of being “fully cooperative” that troubles me.
Adams writes,
Who should lead Southern Baptists? Answer: those who fully support the Cooperative Program and have demonstrated their support through the percentage giving of the church they serve and lead.
How can a person effectively lead Southern Baptists if his church doesn’t support CP with a minimum of the 5.16 percent that the average church gives?
One road leads to the continuation of decline in CP missions giving and the continuation of the decline of the SBC (that is a subject for another article, but yes, we are in serious decline by most every measure). The other road will lead us to growth in our cooperative missions strategy.
Who fully supports the Cooperative Program? According to Randy Adam’s measure, not Ronnie Floyd or Steve Gaines, both of whose churches gave below the average CP percentage when elected. Add to those two the long list that starts with Adrian Rogers. If these did not “effectively lead Southern Baptists” perhaps their deficiences could be explained.
Adams writes elsewhere,
And by “develop strategies to grow CP,” I mean first and foremost, select our leaders from among the thousands who believe in and support CP.
Adams is a state convention leader and there is nothing new or unusual about a state leader promoting the CP in this manner even to the point of endorsing or suggesting candidates. State conventions depend on the CP for almost all of their revenues. If churches give less, states cut jobs. Odd, though, that a non-southern state convention leader would advocate such a bright line for defining churches as “fully cooperative” since the NWBC receives a significant portion of their reveneues from NAMB, which receives most of their revenues from societal giving, not CP giving and I’d bet than many of those Annie Armstrong gifts come from churches whose CP percentages put them in the not “fully cooperative” category.
Both Steve Gaines’ church and Ronnie Floyd’s church have given annual CP gifts of a million dollars. J. D. Greear’s church has given over a million dollars to the CP over the past two years. All three of these megachurches have a record of greatly increasing giving through the Cooperative Program, something to be commended. If there is a positive trend in CP giving, it may be the one demonstrated by Gaines, Floyd, and Greear – megachurches giving more. I haven’t seen data on it but anecdotal evidence looks positive. If there is some hidden profit that accrues to the CP by looking askance at large dollar CP giving churches, I’m not seeing what it is. Perhaps pastors and churches like these should be commended and emulated.
Maybe a better way to promote the Cooperative Program would be the way these two youngerish Southern Baptists do it:
Stop making the CP our goal. Quit judging faithfulness by one’s commitment to CP giving. The CP cannot be our goal. An ever growing commitment to the advancement of God’s kingdom must be. Drive that point home, and paint the picture of our cooperative efforts to advance Christ’s gospel, and watch as Southern Baptist’s giving follows that vision.
This was 2015. If pastor, former IMB missionary, and former denominational worker Micah Fries has changed his views I haven’t seen it.
If a church is evaluating or trimming their CP support, let’s not cajole, pressure, or shame them. That is not a winning strategy. My assessment is not a pragmatic or political calculation. It is a biblical and theological one. Christ promised to build his church, not our denomination. Let’s clean up our vocabulary, and use words like “please” and “thank you,” and shelve words like “should” and “must.” The Southern Baptist Convention agencies, and our state convention partners, serve the churches, not the other way around. As we serve them, they will support us.
This was Midwestern Seminary president Jason Allen in 2017. His words express a more attractive primary strategy for CP promotion in my view.
But I recognize that Adams is addressing SBC leaders, not churches. Unfortunately, churches get thrown under the “fully cooperative” bus in the process. Expressing a preference for a threshold percentage for SBC leaders is normal (I’ve done it myself, once saying 5% would be a good threshold for SBC leaders but then Bryant Wright was nominated, then the two million-a-year pastors, Floyd and Gaines, then Greear). If leaders like Floyd, Gaines, and Greear are to be dismissed and discarded on the basis of not being fully cooperative, I cannot think that the future of the CP is any brighter because of it. Churches like those of Floyd, Gaines, and Greear clearly demonstrate what we value as Southern Baptists – faithfulness to the Lord, energetic and aggressive evangelism, a desire for reaching the nations, and strong support of our cooperative ministries.
No dollar amount of CP gifts need be rewarded with the SBC presidency and no percentage amount need be rewarded either. I judge all candidates for the SBC presidency during my lifetime as being “fully cooperative.” Thank God for all of them.
Amen William. And, for the record, my views have not changed. ?
Mr. Fries, I didn’t know you were a former Company man. Where did you serve?
Ethan, my wife and I were ISC personnel in Burkina Faso.
That quote by Jason Allen gets me fired up.
“If a church is evaluating or trimming their CP support, let’s not cajole, pressure, or shame them.”
And some of the same guys who “shame them” are the same people who shamed a girl for making a fun promotional video for her pastor two years ago….
Man, apparently the Presidency is just a competition between who gives more to the CP in some peoples eyes.
Great article, by the way!
It’s like old school hair styles; the higher the hair the closer to Jesus. Now it’s just the higher the % the closer to holiness, or something like that :).
I’m with Brent–that Allen quote is gold, especially this part.
I would love to hear the candidates’ response to the above quotes. I see the issue of CP giving as an issue of Vision not guilt. Most of the CP talk I have heard recently focuses on the duty of giving at least a certain percentage, but I have not seen very many advocate for a vision that inspires and invites others to join in. Why aren’t denominational leaders working to inspire rather than shame?
Interesting article. The comment, “Churches like those of Floyd, Gaines, and Greear clearly demonstrate what we value as Southern Baptists – faithfulness to the Lord, energetic and aggressive evangelism, a desire for reaching the nations, and strong support of our cooperative ministries.” I think if that statement were truly reflective of what WE value, my home church that now runs around 17 people on a good Sunday should have it’s pastor nominated to be president. But I also think that the SBC elevates megachurch pastors above those whose churches are in the corners of the fields, reaping much smaller harvests, in much more difficult areas. I love our pastor. He’s been in our church for about 20 years and in a very hard south Louisiana Catholic area. I for one am thankful for our state convention that started this church. It was used to lead a small town Catholic church arsonist to the Lord – that was me. The Louisiana Baptist State Convention, without the help of NAMB, planted the church that I was saved in as a boy. Realistically though, I don’t expect out pastor to be nominated.
I don’t disagree that megas are elevated. Count me as one who would like to live long enough to see a non-mega, non-celeb SBC president.
Note that I didn’t say that Floyd, Gaines, and Greear *alone* demonstrate what we value as Southern Baptists. Each of these three are clearly fully cooperative SBCers.
I have always heard and read there is a minimum amount the SBC requires a church to give to the CP to be a member. Once a church gives that amount they are fully cooperating. However, a person allowing his name to be nominated for the presidency of the SBC can expect what % his church gives to the CP to be a topic of discussion.
It is fully reasonable for a person to endorse or reject a nominee based, at least partly, on his church’s CP% giving. It is not reasonable to make that % a litmus on what church is a true partner and what church is not.
CP% giving scrutiny is nothing new and you are wrong if you believe such scrutiny is merely tribalism disguised in convention piety. I remember 12 years ago when a relative unknown, Frank Page, defeated the heir apparent, Ronnie Floyd mainly due to comparing their church’s CP giving.
Dean, I agree with you that CP giving is certainly a legitimate factor in determining who to support for SBC President. It was one of the factors I used when I voted for David Crosby on the first ballot in St. Louis. But I did not denigrate Steve Gaines or JD Greear for the much lower percentage given by the churches they pastor. That’s the problem. We get nowhere by looking at our brother pastors and shaming them for not giving as much as we think they should. I realize some pastors do that in their churches with tithing, but I have not found that to be a winning strategy for increasing church giving. I don’t think it’s a winning strategy for increasing CP giving either. For clarity, I have not seen you belittling churches or pastors for the amount they give, but unfortunately there are some who are. I think that’s really what William is addressing.
Adam, I am not as well read as you doctoral students so I am not aware of the belittling of which you speak. (Congratulations on being accepted.) I read the article that William posted and some of the conclusions that Randy Adams makes seem reasonable, even if I do not completely agree with them.
Being candid is not necessarily mean spirited. One comment Randy Adams made about SBC presidents whose churches give a low % to the CP seems legitimate, “Thus, they do not – and, really, cannot – share passionately with others a vision for the impact such a unified effort makes.”
Such a president can lead us to accomplish great things as a convention but he will have a difficult time challenging us to give generously to the CP to support his vision.
Suddenly, we are imposing a standard that would eliminate from consideration just about every one of the heroes of the CR.
Dave, I am not in favor of imposing a CP% standard for presidential consideration. I personally do not care in the slightest what another church gives to the CP. I feel the comment I lifted from the linked article is a legitimate conclusion and reaching it does not make someone divisive. I know of dozens of pastors who feel this way and tribalism has nothing to do with it. There is a generation that was taught the CP is the lifeblood of the SBC and a president who gives 1% to the CP will have a hard time getting them to listen as he speaks of the importance of the CP. This does not eliminate anyone but it offers a challenge to his position as president.
I voted for all of the CR candidates when they were nominated knowing that more than one gave a small %. However, that does not mean that people didn’t roll their eyes when once our CR heroes were elected and started speaking of the importance of giving to our unified effort.
I’m certain all nominees expect their CP record to be scrutinized. I disagree with Adams’ assertion that any below average CP percentage pastor cannot adequately or passionately promote the CP. I think both Floyd and Gaines have done this quite well even though they are “not fully cooperative” according to Adams.
William, you have highlighted how Steve Gaines’ church is below the average CP% in giving a few times now. I find it puzzling you are so quick to unholster such a sentence when BBC gives 4.6% and the SBC average is 5.1%.
One would think a mega giving within .5% of the SBC average would be lauded as exemplary but for some reason you choose to highlight they do not reach the average.
Dean, I like SG. Has done a good job as SBC prez. Great church. I didn’t draw the line of “fully cooperative”, Adams did.
Who wins if a conflict is started over percentages vs. dollars? Not the CP.
William, I know you have spoken well of S. G. but this is not the first time you have pointed out his church does not give the CP% average. Each time you have done so I have been puzzled.
Nevertheless, you and I are on the same side of this issue. I do not feel CP% is a litmus for those who want to serve in leadership positions. I have stood in meetings and publicly defended people with low CP%. I just don’t feel like it is necessarily divisive to use it as a litmus if that is a person’s conviction. I am afraid some have redefined divisiveness as any criticism aimed toward their guy.
Dean, I did so to demonstrate the absurdity of the “not fully cooperative” classification.
I hope that what we are NOT seeing is the CP co-opted as a divisive campaign tool.
This is becoming a campaign of dirty tricks, and if a church that is as Southern Baptist supportive as Summit is somehow going to be painted as the enemy of the SBC, you know you have wandered into a strange, strange land. I was sent a copy of a “voter guide” that was among the most dishonest things I’ve seen in years – shameful lack of integrity.
I hope truth and cooler heads will prevail and we can walk away from some of this.
Of course the CP and “identity” and the like will be weaponized – of course it’ll get dirty – such is a logical (but sad and damaging) fruit open and active political campaigning for SBC president.
“I hope truth and cooler heads will prevail and we can walk away from some of this.”
I admire that you have blogged for this long and can still hold on to this hope, Dave. I’m with you in hoping that we will keep everything above board.
It is ironic that some who were championing escrowing of CP funds are now using it as a tool to promote their platform.
Yep.
Not only were they supporting a church almost exactly one year ago that was escrowing CP monies, they were also mocking NOBTS students for wearing “I Heart CP” shirts to chapel.
At any given moment, these divisive people will take whatever position for or against the CP is necessary to support their agenda. Last year it was opposing the CP to oppose Dr. Moore. This year it’s supporting the CP to oppose Greear.
I resonate with this post. Many Deaf churches give the “recommended” 10%, but in terms of actual dollars that percent can be measured in the low hundreds for those same Deaf churches. Yet a church like Bro. Gaines that might only give 2% has in actual dollars given millions. We give proportionally more, but realistically little. Percentage can’t be the best measure.
What’s a church’s actual involvement with their associations beyond the financial? That’s a better barometer, to me.
When God established His plan, He used a percentage. How can it not, then, be the “best measure.”
When Jesus talked about giving, He counted not what the widow gave, but what she kept for herself, and likewise with the Pharisees.
The reason megachurches do not give the same percentage is that they would suffer the same problem and challenges of the typical church–not enough “capital” for local growth.
I’m not advocating any particular percentage for the CoOp program because there was no such thing in the Biblical periods, so the tithe may be instructive, but not prescriptive.
It is unfair to suggest to measure the dollar amount given without considering the dollar amount kept.
Christianity is based upon sacrifice. That should be the measure of giving.
As the fable goes, “it is not wise to cook and eat the goose that lays the CP egg.”
Wise words from the Word.
My issue was always with mega churches giving 1% or something and then calling on smaller churches to give 10% to be able to fully participate. Adrian Rogers quip notwithstanding, it is a bad approach.
That said, if a church is cooperating in missions, planting churches, engaging in Great Commission giving and sending, and giving and cooperating in other ways, the CP percentage means less and less overall as a litmus test for leadership. Just make that understanding equitable for large, medium, and small churches and celebrate whatever any church gives. Look at the whole of the ministry. It is God’s money, not the SBC’s and the CP has no more right to it than direct giving to church planting in India by a church, so to speak.
We really should cooperate and work and give together. I believe that. I don’t believe in judging a local church who is going all out in missions and cooperation in sending and working with the SBC if their CP percentage is not the same as other churches who are doing less in sending and going. God should be directing how that church does missions, giving, sending, and going and WE should celebrate and learn from everyone instead of declaring it has to go through our established system to be legitimate.
Giving money is easy. Far easier than going on the field yourself. Shall we compare candidates as to who has helped inspire more people to become full time missionaries? These are silly games. The trads want to set the parameters as to who is a real Southern Baptist, who really supports the SBC, who has the only biblical theology, etc. It’s really all about power. They think the Calvinists have it. They want it. And they are prepared to do anything to get it.
I disagree with using the low CP % of past mega-pastor SBC Presidents to justify the low CP % of a current candidate. For the megas who “do other things” with their missions money, that’s great, but the low CP % giving is still a bad look for a candidate who is expected to be the cheerleader for it.
I think the expectation of a presidential candidate’s church giving at least the SBC CP % average is reasonable. And at only 5% or so currently, it’s not like it’s a budget-breaker. For megas, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Dan B.,
It sure seems like the convention hasn’t cared about the low pct. of our past presidents, so why should they care now?
Not accusing you of this, but there seems like a sure and certan bias in the present election. Objctively, can you see that?
Mike,
I wouldn’t say the convention hasn’t cared about the low CP % from candidates; it’s just that some are unfortunately willing to excuse the status quo for various reasons. More people should care about leadership reflecting the improvement that we’d like to see on this issue. That was the point of my above comment.
I don’t think this issue is part of some 2018-only bias against a particular candidate. Sometimes the final candidates all have low CP %s and the vote has to go to one of them. But in this race, there is a candidate that has a proven track record of CP support that his supporters are happy to talk about. I think that’s great.
What would be interesting is if a small-church-Calvinist pastor who gives 10% to the CP jumps into the race. Who would the Trads support if that guy went to a runoff with Greear? Some would say they’d pout and abstain from the final vote. But I think they’d choose the 10% CP guy.
Of course they would support the small church guy because they are #NeverGreear. Unfortunately, they have not only been talking about the strong CP support of the church Hemphill is often away from for various speaking engagements, they’ve also been trashing Summit for their CP percentage. This has nothing to do with Hemphill. It has everything to do with opposing Greear.
Having been a 30% CP guy (yes, I pastored a church for 5 years with that high of a percentage) and having known a guy whose church was over that–
You can’t get a phone call returned from “important people” with high percentages. Dollars pay bills, not percentages. That’s the mindset that SBC leadership, both the “volunteer” side like SBC presidents and the “professional” side like entity heads, have held since Dr. Rogers said it.
We’ve voted, consistently, for lower CP leaders. We’ve accepted and celebrated, for example, Cross Church’s “doubling” their CP giving when Dr. Floyd was the GCR Task Force head, back when they went from somewhere in the 1-2% range to the 3-4% range.
Churches that have low CP % giving are, at this point, simply following the leadership of Adrian Rogers, Ronnie Floyd, Steve Gaines, and many others.
We cannot set the bar low and then complain that someone meets that low bar. As Southern Baptists, we have consistently endorsed leaders of the SBC on more points other than CP giving. Missions involvement, Biblical preaching, church growth, baptisms, education, etc., have all been factors we have considered.
Yet this year, somehow, it’s now time to reduce “Who should lead?” to a single factor, setting a bar that the past 2 presidents of the SBC would have had hard time meeting, that many SBC heroes didn’t meet.
That’s odd to me. Someone shows up to play football, but then we fuss because he runs near a sideline instead of down the hash marks. It’s all part of what we have deemed an acceptable playing field in times past. And we’ve rejected, if I recall, attempts to codify a standard.
Would that every church believed that the CP was the best, most efficient missions-funding opportunity available, and so felt comfortable with it as their only missions giving. But that’s not the case, is it?
And do we want someone in leadership who thinks everything is great, we just need to write bigger checks? Or is it not a good idea to consider those who have searched for other solutions? CP isn’t Bible, y’all. It’s a good idea, probably a great idea, but are there not other factors involved in the decision-making process?
Doug talking good sense here.
Doug, fair response. And I am amazed at that 30% figure for CP giving at your prior church.
My view is that it’s time to move on beyond the “dollars pay bills” mindset. It’s a megachurch-friendly statement that lessens a spirit of cooperation, not encourages it. With fewer than 200 megachurches in the SBC and 45,000+ of the others, this is a big deal in these trying times of decades-low CP% giving and declining SBC membership.
Nothing will change though unless it becomes a priority in who and what we support. Churches shouldn’t be shamed into giving to the CP at a certain %, but it is reasonable to expect presidential candidates to be part of a church with at least an average % of giving.
“Doug talking good sense”
Words seldom heard anywhere.
And it is sad that a 30% CP church can’t get a phone call answered.
I agree with and congratulate those who are standing on thrological/biblical grounds when it comes to the CP, averages, who is “fully supportive”. I served as a state convention CP Strategist of one of the old-line conventions. I maintain that we have elevated the CP to a vaulted postition that the original 1923-1925 committee never intended. In too many annual meetings , of either state conventions or the SBC, one can hear this statement (or one closely akin) “without the CP we could not have done all this”. I realize that those who make these claims are good, godly leaders. But words have meaning and usages. I believe we need to be so very careful to give all the glory where it rightly belongs. To the Lord God “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Once our confession is about what He does do and can do our eyes will no longer be fixed on what we can or should do. “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” In the end, the measuring rod is His – not ours!