At a large number of our entities (I suspect that this is true of them all, but am unwilling to do the necessary research to make the universal statement), giving money directly to that entity will win you some enhanced level of recognition or access. In my fifteen years at FBC Farmersville, Dr. Ken Hemphill first admitted us into the President’s Club at SWBTS. We’ve been invited to meals because of our level of contribution to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering. Our entities, like virtually all donation seeking entities in the world, show appreciation to donors in proportion to their level of donation.
Unless, that is, those donations come through the Cooperative Program.
If you give $10 million to an SBC seminary, they’ll name a building after you. If you give $10 million through the Cooperative Program to each of the SBC seminaries, as far as I know, none of them will even know who you are in order to be able to acknowledge the gift.
If the Cooperative Program really is our preferred vehicle for funding our cooperative Great Commission enterprises, why doesn’t it count? Why don’t our entities recognize and celebrate CP contributions on perfect parity with contributions made through other channels? One would think that the “preferred” vehicle might even get SPECIAL recognition, but I think it would be a step forward for our State Conventions, our Executive Committee, and our entities to work together to do whatever it takes for CP dollars simply to be promoted to equal standing among all of the donations that our entities receive.
I can see some criticism of an idea like this coming from smaller churches, who would be mostly ignored regarding giving amounts. But on the other hand, that’s really not much different from the current scenario.
(One way to mitigate that would be for entities to recognize increased giving not only by dollar amount, but also by percentage of increase or percentage of a church’s ACP reported budget.)
All in all I think there’s a lot to commend itself in Bart’s proposal. It certainly would seem to raise the profile of “plain ole’ CP giving,” which would be a good thing, even for someone like me who’s advocated designated giving in certain situations.
I appreciate your observation here.
However, does this not seem to imply that an avenue of giving that provides “recognition” to the giver might be preferential over the more anonymous nature of the CP?
If the motive for giving is recognition by an entity, what’s that say about the heart of the giver, despite the many continual needs/requests for funds?
Further, it would seem to me that the entities that hold out the carrot of recognition, access, or preference might be depending less on God and more on their own mechanisms to grease the wheels.
I’d agree that those truly moved by God to live the Great Commission don’t need an entity’s “recognition”. God knows. And God blesses. And, ultimately, His is the recognition that matters.
Thanks for a provocative article! God bless!
Bud, Jesus told us to not let our left hand know what the right hand is doing. If our entities do indeed reward direct giving to themselves, then our heart is not in the right place.
Bart, when the giving structure changed with GCR, the emphasis on the CP was lessened whether we say so or not. Designated giving is designated giving, whether it be missions or in the local church
Thank you.
You’re welcome, Bud!
I don’t think that our respective sentiments are mutually exclusive. An environment in which entities celebrated NO gifts would still be an environment in which they celebrated all gifts equally, right?
I’m just saying that if there are gifts that are going to be celebrated and recognized, then the pathway followed by the money (CP vs Direct) should not make the difference between recognition and no recognition.
Parity.
I’d agree with your response and am not trying to posit a contrary position. Parity would be desirable on the two levels, though doubtless a difficult circumstance to realize.
Let me ask this of you … based on your observations, is there a significant prevalence of some to give where the recognition is greatest? (Asked using the “sincerity” font, since I don’t have any idea!)
I don’t know how qualified I am to answer that question. People working in Institutional Advancement offices throughout the convention entities could provide a more intelligent answer.
Observing from a distance, I’d say that people generally seek recognition not for themselves but for someone else (a parent, a beloved pastor, etc.). In those cases, the desire for recognition is, from what I have seen, often a significant factor.
It could be because the CP checks come weekly and thus become an afterthought. The direct gifts are like a bonus and come all at once.
I saw either a tweet or facebook post from Chuck Kelly at NOBTS this week where he mentioned this week’s CP check being one of the biggest ever. He has not forgotten the importance of the CP.
One suggestion would be more regular thanks from the entities to the churches. As it stand we hear about Lottie and Annie at specific times but might go all year or beyond without thanks from one of the six seminaries, the ERLC,etc. Yet I get regular mail and info from a seminary asking for money.
Dr. Patterson regularly acknowledges the importance of the CP, as does EVERY entity head, to my knowledge.
They just don’t acknowledge the local churches for the respective amounts that they are giving through the CP.
Frankly, I don’t know that they have access to the data in order to know who gave what through the CP.
We personally give every month for the support of SWBTS. We get a card every time we send a gift. We get an invitation to an event annually, because our donation amount elevates us to a certain tier of donors (don’t let your imagination run away with you…it isn’t that much).
I’m just suggesting that, if they had access to the data (and I don’t know that anyone is WITHHOLDING it…I don’t know that anyone has ever undertaken the effort to request this or make this happen), whenever an entity receives a CP check it could send an email or form letter or card to every local church whose CP gifts made up a portion of that check. An email would be fine, really. And then the entity could invite those churches to whatever recognition event their gifts had earned over the course of the year.
An email would cost next to nothing. The data is already in somebody’s computer; it’s just a matter of sending it if it isn’t already being shared. Most churches wouldn’t send anyone to the events, just because of travel and lodging expense, but for those who did, the entities would have an opportunity to win them over as boosters.
But perhaps more importantly than anything else, churches would SEE, shortly after they sent in their CP checks, that the money ARRIVED at all of its destinations! They would see HOW MUCH of the money arrived at which destinations (which might make a few of our state conventions oppose the idea, I guess). I think it would amount to a powerful CP promotion and education tool, as well as just being the right thing to do.
Bart,
I think you really hit on something there at the end that makes this idea even more enticing to me – that is the idea that churches would be able to see how much money made it out of the state and to the specific programs. This type of information ought to be extremely transparent and in our face all throughout the year to encourage good stewardship at the church, local, state, and national level. I think it would be good if churches even published a breakdown of their givings on their church website and (shocker) even talked about it on Sunday morning rather than just in business meetings when only a handful of folks are present. These, and many more ideas, could help to recover a clear vision/mission within a church’s giving ministry. I have no data to prove this, but I really suspect that one key reason more people don’t contribute financially to their church is that they don’t know where the money is going.
This is a beautiful example of what I think all churches should be putting on their websites and in their bulletins for all the world to see. Way to go Southern Hills!
http://www.southernhillsbc.com/denomination/
I like that piece and wish all SBC churches would be upfront and honest via their websites on both their affiliations and how they cooperate with them. Thanks.
I’ve got to say I like that too.
I’m sure the Associate Pastor came up with and implemented that write up!
😉
Bart,
I hope my comment did not read like I was placing Dr Kelley above PP or others. With my limited knowledge of each seminary head, I personally feel that we as Southern Baptists are in good hands at each school. I have met Dr Iorg and love him and while I have not met the others, I love PP, Dr Allen, Dr Kelley, Dr Mohler and my man, Danny Akin too.
I would think your suggestion could be accomplished at the state level if the churches asked for it. I think it is a gat idea to help each church see where there tithes go and what they help accomplish. IMB and NAMB do a good job of thanking the churches but it would be great for them to hear from all supported entities.
I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I did not know about Baptist Global Response until this summer. They received my family’s non-Lottie nod Operation Christmas Child gift this past year and will do so in the future. I wish I had known about them years ago.
Not at all Louis. I wasn’t offended. I was simply trying to make the point about how all our entities appreciate the CP but none acknowledge individual churches for their specific CP gifts.
Bart,
I think this is one of the best ideas about enhancing the CP giving structure. I also see where some may be concerned that it could promote giving for the wrong reasons. But let us unpack that for a minute.
Whenever we think about giving for the wrong reasons we think about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Clearly they were in the wrong. BUT – what was wrong was not the mode in which they gave, but the attitude with which they gave. Therefore, if their hearts had been right they still would have given in the same way. People clearly knew about how much other people had given because that is apparently what Ananias and Sapphira were trying to imitate. There was nothing wrong with folks knowing others had given greatly to help their fellow brothers – nothing negative at all is implied when people are selling their belongings and sharing what they had with their poorer brothers. It would have made no sense for Peter to stand up and say “Stop sharing what you have because you might be tempted to do it for the wrong reason!” The MODE of giving was never the issue – the MOTIVE was always the issue.
Add to this the fact that we are all blessed with different gifts/abilities and “giving” is among the list. We are to celebrate and encourage people’s gifts – not in a prideful/sinful way of course, but in a way that points to God’s provision and wisdom in giving many different members to the body. And we are to stir one another up for good works! Do we really want to limit that to every good work except giving?
I think this has great application to things like donor appreciation programs. It’s good to celebrate what we’ve been able to accomplish as a body. It’s good to encourage those that have given charitably by letting them see what their dollars have gone toward. These things serve as a reminder that ALL that we have belong to God and should be fueling His mission – not ours. The key of course is doing donor appreciation in a truly God-glorifying way. But to not do it because someone might be tempted to give for the wrong reason is like saying we should stop driving our cars to church because someone might covet our new ride.
I’ll leave naming buildings after people for another time. 😉
In Christ,
-Bob B.
Amen! Thanks for a great exploration of these themes!
I have a file folder in my office with the “Thank you for giving through the CP” letters from the entities that are CP funded here in Arkansas. Both colleges, Siloam (camp, for you foreigners), Children’s Home, the Arkansas Baptist Foundation, and at least 2 of the teams that fall under “Executive Board” teams.
Usually the letter from the ABSC team with the thank you includes a breakdown that shows where all the money the church gave through CP went to–shows, for example, that in 2014, of $34,137 (and the % that is of ACP reported giving, 29.98%) given through CP by Almyra Baptist, $7,338 went to IMB, $209 went to “Shared Ministries,” $773 went to the Leadership/Worship Team (and so on, just examples).
I think both the letters (yes, general/mass mail letters) and the report help. Each year we hear how many kids heard the Gospel at camp, and how many were saved. We hear how many students are on campus at the 2 colleges and some of what’s happening, and so forth.
So, basically, I think Bart’s right on this one. It’s part of how we can communicate how that money is used, and how churches are an ongoing partners with what’s going on. It communicates that the stable support is not taken for granted.
Maybe they could commission a stained glass window with the letters “CP” in bold relief.
I would guess that it’s because large donors have more immediacy with respect to the voluntary decision to donate often while in discussion with key leaders. And perhaps because recognizing a “church” doesn’t exactly resonate. And, of course, big dollars create a bit of a stir that could help in bringing out more big dollar donations.
I’m kind of neutral on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. My school–Texas A&M–struggles with donations and recognition in a similar way and it bothers me not even slightly that donors can influence capital outlay decisions or that they desire recognition.
Or let me put that more specifically: I had the advantage of a living couple who sponsored my scholarship at A&M. They recognized me on site and even invited me to visit when I could at their luxury box. (I actually did NOT spend time there during one game: a Baylor game that was so wet that we were sharing the second row at Kyle so we wouldn’t be standing in about a foot of water in the first row where my tickets actually were.) I visited them again in Horseshoe Bay after all my kids were born and had a great visit with them.
That kind of living legacy is valuable and should be an integral part of the donor relationship with the school. I realize SWBTS doesn’t field a football team so inviting students to the luxury suites is probably harder. But there is the opportunity for ALL contributors to interact with the campus and perform the vital task of encouraging the students and faculty through continuing support and prayer and presence.
grr…on SIGHT not “on site”.
Greg,
This isn’t really about large donors vs small donors. My donation isn’t that large. In fact, I contribute a good bit MORE to the work of the entities through the CP than I contribute through direct giving. CP is the large donation.
It’s not really about individual donors vs institutional (church or otherwise) donors, because all of the entities recognize church donations or other institutional donations just like they recognize individual gifts, so long as they don’t come through the Cooperative Program.
The question is really whether CP donations will be treated as gifts from churches to the entities. We’re told that we give “through” the CP, not “to” the CP. If that’s the case—if CP receipts to entities are really receipts from churches rather than receipts from the Executive Committee—then I can’t think of any reason why gifts that come through the CP shouldn’t be treated just the same as gifts coming directly to the entities themselves.
Yeah…you weren’t trying to read the point I was making. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so subtle.
If you gave your money TO GOD, why do you want credit from an entity for giving it?
Sorry. I just didn’t see that in your comment.
I did reply to a similar sentiment up above where Bud made that point pretty clearly. I’m fine with a system in which both CP giving and direct giving are equally UNrecognized, if that’s what we decide to do. My point is simply that it makes no sense (and makes our actions contradict our words) to have a dichotomy in which CP gifts are unrecognized while direct gifts are recognized.
In Tennessee, the state paper publishes each year a list of the top churches in total giving and per capita giving. That recognizes both large and small size churches. (I’m pretty sure that is in Tennessee – I have been through several states in my career).
Thanks, David.
I think every state—or at least NEARLY every state—does just that. In Texas, they publish not only the top churches, but the giving record of every church in our SBTC paper. That’s a good thing, and it is important.
It is not, however, the same level of recognition that is given by every entity in response to direct gifts.
And so, it has never been my point in this post to suggest that CP giving is never published or acknowledged by anyone; rather, I’ve simply been trying to make the point that CP giving is not recognized and celebrated to the same degree as are direct gifts.
Contrasting what you’ve mentioned with the way that direct gifts are treated, we find…
1. EVERY direct gift is generally acknowledged by our entities with some sort of a thank you card or note; only the top 10 CP givers by amount or percentage receive any recognition in the common system that you have mentioned.
2. Entities generally acknowledge direct gifts immediately and repeatedly for each occurrence; the recognition that you have mentioned happens once per year.
We simply do not treat CP giving with as much respect and gratitude as we do direct gifts to our entities.
The best way to kill the strongest financial program for the support of missions is by benign neglect. Just don’t mention it at all. And when it is mentioned, be sure to call attention to how much money does not make it out of the state. Tell me: which program is it that pays the salaries of missionaries and professors at our seminaries? If I were an enemy of Southern Baptists and their missionary program, I would use every method to diminish and destroy that mission support program which has provided us with representatives in state capitals and, formerly, in the U.S. capital, paid the salaries of executives and other servants as well as the salaries of missionaries and seminary professors. Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings were for the purpose of providing for special projects. The Devil must be jumping with glee at seeing a questioning of the main supply line of support for our missionary program. If I were to make any changes, I would alter the method of selecting members of the boards, being very sure that the head of the board had nothing to do with it. I would also alter the nature of our organizations, from corporations to a more scriptural type of structure. We do need greater flexibility, and we could have it, if we made a closer study of New Testament structures and how they worked. In short, our biggest need now is for some ecclesiologists who know their business and who have no agendas to promote but the truth.
With the CP declining in importance for three decades running I’d think that any entity that receives CP money would have people thinking about how to make churches feel appreciated for giving through it. I just don’t see many ideas floated…which is why I appreciate yours and would respond to it:
1. State conventions (only two of which I am intimately familiar with but suspect that all follow the same practices) and their entities (schools, traditional causes like children’s homes and aging ministries) incessantly thank, promote, and offer gratitude to all churches for their CP gifts. Big churches, small churches, big dollar givers, small dollar givers, big percentage givers, small percentage givers…all get thanks. State conventions know which side their bread is buttered on, their problem is not non-appreciation of churches but lack of vision and ministry that engages churches.
2. Since 45,000 or so SBC churches give something to the CP, should the six seminaries, ERLC, NAMB, IMB, and XC all directly thank each church for their CP gifts? Sure. How often? Once each year would be sufficient. I really don’t want a monthly letter from Russell Moore thanking my church for the $10 or so of CP gifts that we sent them indirectly.
3. I think that almost every time I have heard an entity head or employee address groups of SBC pastors and church folks, they have thanked them for their CP gifts. I know that every mssy that has ever come to one of my churches has done so.
4. Here are a few ideas for entities and leaders that might help regaining respect for the CP:
a. State conventions should drop any and all of the fuzzy, confusing, often deceptive “shared ministry” budget categories. Tell the churches, “We keep x% of your CP dollar in the state. We forward x% to the XC for allocation to our entities.
b. Entities should make it a practice of being more transparent. Troubles at NAMB, IMB, state colleges and some seminaries in recent years demonstrate (to me anyway) a lack of respect for people who pay the bills.
c. Make a stab at rebranding the CP. There has to be a set of better ideas than we have been getting.
d. Do something other than ask churches to give more money. Offer an engaging vision.
e. Stop whining about what used to be. This is particularly applicable to state convention leaders who often start a statement that, “If churches gave as they did in 1980 we would have X million more dollars to spend…”
f. Nominating committees should set a standard for CP percentage of the churches their nominees attend. Nothing shows less respect for the CP than to have people nominated whose churches demonstrate that the CP is far from a budget priority.
But…if the entities can access databases and know exactly what each church gives to the CP, apply the percentage in each state that the state keeps, apply the SBC allocation formula to that and end with how much each of the 45k or so churches give to their respective entity, and send a thank you email or letter to each church as often as they give…I’m OK with that.
Keep thinking, my friend, then see if you can get someone that is in charge to listen. We need some new ideas.
In addition to or instead of (I prefer in addition to) my idea about acknowledgements, I think the SBC Executive Committee should have a website wherein every church could log in and see a detailed accounting of where their CP dollars have gone. This would require cooperation from state conventions (or, at the very least, would be enhanced by such cooperation).
As for the frequency of notification, I give to SWBTS monthly and I get an acknowledgement/thank-you every month.
My rank conjecture is that state conventions don’t really wish for churches to know that so little of their CP gifts go to NAMB, IMB, and the seminaries preferring that laypeople believe that most goes to the two mission boards rather than about 30 cents on the dollar…but I’m for any calculator along these lines.
My state convention would be fine, 😉 and I feel some level of confidence about the seminaries. Since the money goes to fund a tuition break for the students, people who care about training future missionaries and pastors without saddling them with enormous debt along the way will support funding for the seminaries.
Frankly, when our PREVIOUS state convention was monkeying around with the Cooperative Program, funding the seminaries was a pretty high priority for the people in my church.
Sure, there are some anti-education enclaves in the convention, but let’s not overestimate the number of people who wish their pastors or missionaries didn’t have any education.