If the problem of fulfilling the Great Commission is the need of greater financial resources then the Cooperative Program must be invigorated to become something that will compel greater giving and church support. Creating flexibility and giving ownership to churches will stimulate a willingness to increase allocations. Churches do want to be a part of doing more together than they can do independently, but they want more involvement in determining what that is.

Another factor that will create greater confidence in the system and encourage an increase in giving is to be more straightforward in what actually happens to an allocation to the CP and to be more efficient in the use of those resources. This is not to say that anyone is being dishonest, but there is suspicion about where all those funds go and what is being done with them.

Such candor could start by not calling something missions that is not. The Cooperative Program is sometimes promoted as “CP Missions” when it is evident that most of the funds don’t have anything to do with winning people to Christ, starting churches and engaging unevangelized areas with the gospel at home or overseas. This will be the topic of the next blogpost.

We must cease putting a spin on promotion in trying to make people believe CP is doing more than it is. Most of the people in the pew believe that half of the CP allocation that leaves their church goes to support international missionaries. Whenever it is said that 86 percent of CP to the SBC goes to missions, it is deceptive as most churches see that reference to CP as what their church designates as CP, not just the portion received at the national level. I have been criticized by Southern Baptist leaders over the years and accused of eroding confidence in CP by pointing out that the IMB only receives 17 percent of Cooperative Program funding from the churches rather than 50 percent.

State Conventions report how CP funds are divided between the state and SBC. But few Southern Baptists understand that there are “priority items” excerpted from funds received from the churches before the percentage division is determined. For example, most states contribute a share of contributions to Guidestone for annuity accounts of pastors and church staff, which is commendable, but it is only after those funds are withdrawn from receipts that the division is made.

Some states have also considered partnership missions as a priority item since this is funding for missions beyond their own needs and state programs. Several states have extensive work overseas, which is not always aligned with IMB strategies. That is okay, as we are not in competition with anyone seeking to reach a lost world. In fact, we are seeking to mobilize churches, associations and state conventions for involvement in our global task, but should this be the role of the state convention when it requires even more funds to be withheld by the states?

One of the more discouraging aspects of our traditional approach to the Cooperative Program is setting the annual budget for a particular year based on the amount received two years earlier. That is designed to give assurance in budget planning that funds are likely to cover the needs. But nothing could be less challenging. “Okay, Southern Baptists,” it is said, “let’s rally and try to give as much as we did year before last!” Then when that arbitrary budget level is met, most state conventions consider anything received over the budgeted amount as “their funds” to decide what to do with the excess rather than dividing all funds received according to the set percentage between the state and SBC.

If a state keeps 65 percent and sends 35 percent to the SBC, churches expect every penny of CP funds channeled through the state to be divided by that formula. Only recently have most states begun to divide all funds by the formula with the exception of “priority items.” But if that is not done, setting an arbitrarily low budget increases the likelihood the state could keep more when giving exceeds the budget.

Nothing drives commitment and sacrificial support like a compelling, passionate vision. We ought to challenge Southern Baptists to give what it takes to reach our nation and a lost world and see that funds are prioritized to actually go for that purpose. If the budget is not met, offices and programs all need to be prepared to cut back, but for goodness sake, let’s challenge our churches to give to a God-sized vision rather than appealing to them to sustain the work of past years.

Some radical efforts for operating more efficiently could go a long way toward encouraging more generous support. We are locked into organizational structures and antiquated models that absorb a massive proportion of our resources for administrative costs. Some state conventions have executive committees with more than a hundred board members. The Executive Committee and International Mission Board each have 90 members. The travel, hotels and meeting expenses are enormous.

We can’t reduce these bureaucratic systems because of a lack of trust. Since we can’t trust gifted, God-called leaders, every special interest must be represented. Committees and boards must have representation from every region of the state or nation; each gender and ethnic group must be represented as well as small churches and large churches, city churches and rural churches. The IMB has finally taken action to reduce its number of annual board meetings from six to four, but each one costs an average of $100,000! It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to come up with a more efficient and cost-effective system of governing and accountability.

The number on boards and committees could be reduced. Couldn’t several of the smaller state conventions consolidate into larger regional configurations and adequately serve the churches with a much smaller staff rather than duplicating programs and staffing needs in each state? What if our six seminaries operated under a consolidated administrative structure designed to provide theological education to Southern Baptists everywhere? Why couldn’t each one specialize in certain graduate degrees rather than duplicating programs and competing with each other for students?

The Executive Committee could be streamlined to provide administration and promotion on behalf of the Southern Baptists between our annual conventions instead of creating and funding its own ministries. “Empowering Kingdom Growth” and “Global Evangelism Relations” are well-intentioned programs, but should not we be asking what is resulting from the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to sustain their support, and how long should they be continued? Is it necessary to have a Southern Baptist Foundation overlapping with the work of state Baptist foundations?

Giving is discouraged and credibility diminished when those supported by the Cooperative Program are unwilling to reveal salaries and benefits they receive. If one is embarrassed to publicly acknowledge what they receive for “serving” an entity, a state convention or the SBC, then initiative ought to be taken to reduce their salary. Confidence in giving to the CP would be greatly enhanced by leaders being transparent in what they receive and Southern Baptists knowing how much is consumed by salaries and administrative support.

Again, I want to emphasize, I don’t think anyone is being dishonest. State budgets and SBC budgets are clearly outlined when convention action is taken. But the intricacies and complexity of how the Cooperative Program is used and where the funds all go is not really known and understood. Churches just can’t understand why more doesn’t go to missions and reaching a lost world. Lack of transparency and perceived inefficiency doesn’t encourage channeling even more funds into a generic denominational pool of funding.

  • Share/Bookmark