One Sacred Effort
According to our banner, SBC Witness exists for the purpose of "encouraging Southern Baptist cooperation and faithfulness." Each of our contributors, though we serve in diverse ministry positions, live in different states, and disagree on any number of secondary matters, are committed to the SBC and are hopeful for the future of the convention. And we all like SEC football.
One way that we can encourage Southern Baptist cooperation and faithfulness is by educating Southern Baptists about our Cooperative Program (CP), the unified giving plan at the heart of the convention. As Jon Akin and Jedidiah Coppenger so helpfully demonstrated this summer, the CP is not without its faults. Jon, Jedidiah, and many, many others (including me) are convinced that the CP has room for improvement, and that it is critical for Southern Baptists to be willing to revisit and tweak the CP to make it a more effective means of funding our cooperative endeavors.
Despite its weaknesses, the CP is still the best thing going. Unfortunately, many–perhaps most–Southern Baptists have no clue what the CP is. Not a few SBC pastors are virtually unfamiliar with the Cooperative Program. But there is a remedy.
In 2005, B&H published an important work titled One Sacred Effort: The Cooperative Program of Southern Baptists. The book is co-authored by Southern Seminary theology professor Chad Owen Brand and Louisiana Baptist Convention executive director (and former SBC Executive Committee vice president) David E. Hankins. It is a very good book.
All of our seminaries make educating students about the CP a component of our respective curricula. For example, at Southeastern all students are required to take what amounts to an independent study course on the CP. Students read One Sacred Effort (which B&H graciously provides free of charge) and take a number of quizzes on the content of the book, administered online. Of course the CP is also emphasized in Baptist History and Identity classes at both the college and seminary levels, though the book is not required in those classes because of the aforementioned independent study course. No student goes through our seminary–or our sister seminaries–without being introduced to the CP and the Southern Baptist "way" to do cooperative missions.
But One Sacred Effort was not written for the sole purpose of being used as a textbook in college and seminary classes. Brand and Hankins wrote the book to educate all Southern Baptists, especially pastors and other church staff. To that end, let me highly encourage those of you engaged in local church work to purchase a copy of One Sacred Effort. It is the best short treatment of general SBC history, Baptist identity, and the in's and out's of how the SBC works and how we fund the many things we do.
10,000+ missionaries strong - the more that know the better!
Sam, thanks for the comment. Are you referencing the grand total of all SBC missionaries? Just checking.
Allow me to ask a related question. If it is off the mark, please disregard.
I agree that the CP is one of the greatest cooperative missions idea in all of church history. But, the CP is in danger, not from small church pastors who don’t know how it works or why, but from large churches that give ridiculously small percentages of their budget to the CP. I have been greatly dismayed to learn over the last few years that the churches where many of the Presdients during the CR served gave less than 5% to the CP, some closer to 2%.
My question is this: do you know of any study that has analyzed the average % that SBC churches give to the CP? In addition, I would like to see the breakdown according to size.
What I am learning by observing the “leading churches” in our convention is that the new standard for CP giving is around 2.5%, and that we should be keeping the rest to do hands on missions, build buildings, or add staff. I am not advocating but just observing.
Todd, good questions. First, although I do not have a citation at hand, I know that the CP Task Force that gave its report to the 2006 SBC in Greensboro estimates that the average church gives 6.6% of its budget to the CP. That is down from a hair under 10% thirty years ago.
Second, the megachurch situation is (I think) a bit more complicated than mere percentages. For example, a medium size church that gives 10% to the CP may give $100,000 a year. A megachurch that gives 2.5% of its budget may give $300,000 a year. So my question is, if (some) megachurches actually give a great deal to the CP, even if at a low percentage of their budget, should they be criticized for not giving enough to the CP. Personally, I don’t think so.
Third, there are many, many churches that bypass the CP and give directly to Nashville. This money is not considered “CP” because it does not fund state conventions, but it still funds SBC causes. Should these churches be criticized for not giving much or anything to the “CP” if the reason is they think their money is better used by Nashville than a subpar state convention. Again, I don’t think so. That is the issue that Jon Akin was getting at in the post I mentioned in this post.
All that to say, many churches could and should give more than they do. But there is more to the situation than mere statistics.
NAF
My comment reflects what the SBC reports:
IMB - 4,946
NAMB - 5,081
Total - 10,027
http://www.sbc.net/missionswork.asp
I have heard the “6% of 3 million is more than 10% of 100,000″ argument before, and it bewilders me. Would we accept the same argument from a person who says “the 3% I give from my income of 2 million is larger than the full tithe that a person who earns 30K”? (I am not proposing that the church must tithe to the convention, but just using the comparison).
Yes, large churches with large budgets should be criticized (or at least be honest) that they are not giving their share to the CP. Further, smaller churches ought to follow their lead and stop giving 10%.
Please, I am not really criticizing any one. Churches are free to give as they choose to the CP. Just don’t be suprised as the smaller churches wake up to the reality that the “SBC way” is to give 3% and to keep the rest to do local missions.
Concerning the missionary count by the SBC, I would add that over half of the NAMB count consists of Mission Service Corps volunteers. Obviously these folks do not receive salary support from the CP but do benefit in many other ways.
Anyone who has interest in the functioning of the CP should check ut Timmy Brister’s blog on The Fleecing of the SBC.
timmnybrister.com
With all this talk about CP, let me suggest two key ideas that must be reclaimed if the CP is going to remain strong.
1. Proportional giving. We “sell” capital fund raising campaigns to our congregations with the ideas of “not equal gifts but equal sacrifice.” We understand that our federal tax system is based upon proportions and not flat dollar amounts. Once we remove proportional giving (which is what the “percentages don’t pay bills” argument does), then the C of the CP goes out the window. Churches will begin to set amounts instead of percentages and CP giving will decrease dramatically.
2. Accountability. I know that theoretically, the convention holds the agencies accountable when we meet during June. That’s theory. Reality is that we are fed a budget with no opportunity to really question it. Our only ability to express our opinion is by withholding money. That is the only way to get the attention of the convention leadership.
Take away these two keys and the CP will fade away within a decade.
I have been out of hoc for a couple of days, so I have not kept a close watch on this discussion.
First, I don’t think Sam Rainer was claiming that all 10,000 of the NAMB missionaries are paid by the CP directly. Nevertheless, CP allows NAMB to have the ability to support/facilitate the ministries of the volunteer missionaries.
Second, Timmy was largely echoing what we have been saying on this blog since this summer. See the Akin and Coppenger posts referenced above.
Third, as for proportional giving, I personally agree that many megachurches could give more. Nevertheless, it is their choice to set their own CP percentages, and the fact does remain they give more than smaller churches. And often make better use of their money than many state conventions.
Finally, there is no reason at all the budget could not be challenged at a convention. But the problem is not the national budget. The problem is the state budgets. And that is exactly why the very megachurches that you are complaining about vote by witholding much of their money from the CP.
NAF
My earlier comment regarding NAMB’s missionary count involving MSC volunteers was by no means intended to be negative.
I serve as a MSC missionary and praise God for the CP, even if I am not paid directly. As Nathan mentions, and I alluded to already, we benefit tremendously in many other ways from CP funds.
My intention was merely to share the fact that we are included in their count since many do not know. I am a student at Southern Seminary and graduated from a baptist college, and I wasn’t even aware of it until my appointment.
Blessings!