I suppose there will be all manner of celebrations, somewhere, over the centennial anniversary of our venerable flagship denominational giving scheme, The Cooperative Program. I don’t recall seeing much about it but we have about six months to go.
Here’s the most salient fact about the Cooperative Program: It provides the longest running trend in Southern Baptist life. The CP has been consistently declining as a percentage of church undesignated giving for about half of its life.
It is still a huge source of funding for denominational entities, although the sums to distribute have dropped well below $200 million. SBC churches have for years sent more of their mission dollars directly to the mission boards and seminaries than to the SBC Executive Committee to be allocated through the CP.
Sure, the CP’s market basket funding system is sensible. One church can with one gift support our two mission boards, six seminaries, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Executive Committee and the Historical Commission. Oh, and the state conventions that suck up most of every CP dollar, somewhere around sixty cents of it. It’s a great idea but it’s an idea that has had it’s halcyon days, nevermore to return. Convince me otherwise.
Some questions about the CP on its birthday year:
Is there any plan being prepared that would do anything other than manage a declining legacy brand funding system?
Maybe the CP is beyond revitalization. I don’t know. I do know that the Great Commission Resurgence plan to reduce the “bloated bureaucracies” of the state conventions has run its course. The latest significant plan (see the Tennessee Baptist Convention) was to bypass the EC and have the state send a portion of CP revenue directly to the IMB. That was beaten back by messengers in that state but it is astonishing that the proposal had official standing to begin with. Such is the condition the SBC is in right now.
If people follow vision, and that’s about the oldest SBC cliché in our massive cliché handbook, then where is the vision? Vision 2025 crashed and burned years ago. It wasn’t much of a CP improvement plan unless you count tossing out a colorful chart as a plan.
Will the Executive Committee itself survive?
I think so but in the middle of the white hot sex abuse scandal, the convention, and subsequently the EC, made some colossal blunders. Most of the EC’s assets are squandered and children are no safer in churches. The monumentally foolish vote to indemnify the independent investigative group against all future lawsuits is a millstone on the EC’s neck. We voted to tie it on. We are sinking as a result.
Why is the CP’s problem child, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission still a part of the CP?
It doesn’t matter who the ERLC’s leader is, the organization will always have heavy critics. I can’t see that any unified SBC voice is accomplishing much. And I can’t see that the ERLC is profitable to have as a national entity that is identified as SBC. Will someone propose that they be transitioned to self-supporting status and thereby free the CP from one source of criticism? If they are that valuable, surely they can raise their own budget.
The two mission boards are where the money and momentum are. Is this good or bad?
I’m inclined to say, with a mild caveat, that this is good. IMB and NAMB have recovered from self-inflicted meltdowns, RIFs, and COVID. They have endured withering criticism and now Southern Baptist churches and individuals are sending them record offerings. They are both flush with cash. IMB has around 3,500 overseas personnel. They are, as best as I can determine, in a financial position to appoint as many new personnel as have been candidated and approved. NAMB claims around 3,000 domestic missionaries and has an active and vigorous system for identifying, training and sending (in partner with a local church) new personnel.
Isn’t this the best expression of what the SBC has always intended to be? What could go wrong with that?
Hopefully, nothing, but the two organizations have about all the free cash in the SBC. Money has always been power in the SBC. They have the money. They have the power. Just recall what happened to the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force. Let’s see what happens.
Will the SBC implement policies that require more for membership privileges?
A token contribution to SBC causes can gain for the giving church substantially reduced seminary tuition, total funding for missionary appointment, and eligibility for trustee appointments and messenger credentials. I’m at a place where it makes more sense to make identification as an SBC church require more of churches. At the least this idea should be analyzed. Are churches joining, joining to have dual status, for the benefits? How costly is this? Is the benefit to the SBC sufficient or are we gaining numerous “soft” members who depart after whatever financial benefits are exhausted? Let’s see data.
We SBCers love numbers so much, I’m not certain we would trade lower church membership totals for a system that demands more of churches, unless it involves sexism and misogyny. See below.
Will the SBC recover from the insanity and damage of the failed Law Amendment?
That debacle, fueled by mindless zealotry and cowardly silence, was costly to the CP and the SBC. Like many other issues, Lifeway Research will never touch an honest examination of this one. Anecdotally, this was a greater blow than the sex abuse matter.
No church has to give to the Cooperative Program to be SBC. Is this a problem?
I could argue both ways in answering this one.
____________________
