“Component #5: We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to reaffirm the Cooperative Program as our central means of supporting Great Commission ministries; but in addition, we will ask Southern Baptists to celebrate with our churches in their Great Commission Giving that goes directly through the Cooperative Program, as well as any designated gifts given to the causes of the Southern Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.”–Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 27
“Please understand clearly, we are not recommending any changes to the Cooperative Program but are reaffirming it as our central means of supporting the Great Commission ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention.”–Ronnie Floyd, Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 27
“[We] should acknowledge and appreciate [designated gifts as an] adjustment of nomenclature.”–J. Robert White, GCRTF Preliminary Report session
Because of a request from a fellow commentator (Louis at Praisegod Barebones), I have jumped to Component 5 to discuss what many see as the greatest weakness to the GCRTF report. In essence, a new term would be used in Southern Baptist life, Great Commission Giving, which would include both CP & designated gifts. Allow me to use the words of another commentator as a skeleton for my own response.
Steve Loggins, Director of Missions, North Jefferson Baptist Association, Alabama, wrote a scathing response to the GCRTF presentation, focusing at one point on Component 5:
“Component 5 is a big problem for me – I do not see how ‘celebrating designated giving’ is going to do anything but reduce support for the CP instead of enhancing it. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and I pray that Lord reveal this also to me – I do appreciate the gifts given to the association, to the state, to other mission causes – but if we put these along side of the CP as equal partners – then we will find that diamond of the CP will be lost in the setting of a host of other jewels – too numerous to count, for everyone has their own favorite mission enterprise.”
Rev. Loggins is correct in his cursory judgment…if the term is not defined correctly. If we indeed allow “gifts given to the association, to the state, [and] to other mission causes” to be counted as “equal partners” with CP, we are doomed to simply transfer our funds to a pseudo-societal model, much like the one we had before 1925. However, proper safeguards put into place should prevent this re-appropriation from taking place at too high a level. Will churches re-direct funds under a expanded definition? Yes, because they will have the liberty and the breadth to do so. Can we keep CP alive and even improve it? Yes, if we carefully determine how the money is considered as “equal” (more on this later).
“In fact, this is already part of the problem in the loss of CP giving which facilitates what we do as Southern Baptists.”–Steve Loggins
This would seem to be the case at first glance. Direct funding apart from CP is no doubt part of the problem of why CP is underfunded (poor stewardship by Baptists in the pews and churches are a large chunk, in my opinion). However, directed funding also keep our CP-supported entities alive.
The following data for the funding year 2007-2008 is taken from the 2009 Book of Reports, with page numbers indicated after each example. Direct contributions to Nashville for distribution through CP from individuals and churches makes up 3.09% of the CP budget (31). When distributed throught the CP allocations, that 6.3 million dollars constitutes anywhere from 0.84% (Southwestern) to 3.02% (ERLC) of an entity’s budget (20-26). Money from other sources (“designations”, “other gifts”, or “other sources”), make up anywhere from 1.47% (ERLC) to 22.67% (New Orleans) of the entity’s budget (20-26). By comparison, CP money allocated from the states’ contributions makes up 26.33% (Southwestern) to 94.83% (ERLC) of the entity’s budget (20-26).
In conclusion, we already give directly, either to get around uncooperative states (which I call support-with-dissent) or for direct one-entity funding, even before we expand the definition. We need to allow, maybe even encourage, direct giving, but be most careful not to revert to a societal, non-CP system in the process.
“We do not need to add more pieces to the pie – just enlarge the pie.”–Steve Loggins
I am loathe to re-hash old arguments of mine (so I will direct you to the post where I expressed them), but I will add two comments. The GCR will have to start with you and me and blue-haired grandma in the pew. If we do not give, whether societally, cooperatively, with the state, around the state, whatever, if we do not give, we will never fund the entities that we have commissioned to aid us in the Great Commission. We must “enlarge the pie” by emptying our wallets.
Secondly, we must encourage each church to feel free to autonomously give without encouraging them to undercut cooperative efforts. In consonance with the apostle Paul, set aside contributions for the good of the church, but also give to support common efforts.
The End of the Matter
What are our options?
1) We can refuse the recommendation:
This would preserve us from what many perceive is a watering-down (or at least, a putting on the back burner) of CP emphasis. However, it does not fix the underlying problem of poor stewardship at every level in our Convention. I then tacitly reject this option.
2) We can not define what “Great Commission Giving” and allow each church (association, state) determine it for themselves:
This would leave wide open the door to anemic CP giving and pseudo-societalism that Loggins (and I) fear. I actively oppose this option!
3) We can create a series of offerings, akin to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, to supplement and emphasize direct entity giving:
This option has been proposed at one level by some, including Bart Barber (and myself). This is a reasonable option at first consideration, but would be a scheduling and promotion nightmare. Consider the following yearly schedule:
JAN–promote Southern Baptist History emphasis
FEB–Historical Archives Offering
MAR–promote North American missions
APR–Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
MAY–promote state and national coordination?!
JUN–ExComm Offering (during Convention?!)
JUL–promote our professors and future pastors
AUG–J.P. Boyce Seminaries Offering
SEP–promote standing firm on social issues
OCT–ERLC Watchman on the Wall Offering
NOV–promote International missions
DEC–Lottie Moon Easter Offering
…and we think giving to the two mission offerings is already too low! This model also has the genetic problem of societal giving: pew burnout. And for thsoe of us who are passionate about supporting the work of the Convention, will we have to rob from Annie to give to the seminary? I must reject this option.
4) We can move the CP distribution to the state…or preferably to the local church:
Each body of believers, under our polity, has the right to direct their gifts to the needs of their community and their various inter-church associations. The role of promotion by the states and the entities would be directed from the Executive Committee’s subcommittee on Convention budget to the budget committees of the churches. collection of funds would then be at each endpoint: state office and entity offices. However freeing and patently Baptist this seems, this option also runs the risk of societal giving itself with the overwhelming flood of pleas and the need for expanded back offices to produce and distribute those pleas. I oppose this option as well.
5) We can define giving in narrow terms and promote CP as the best of all modes:
The best option, in my opinion, is to create a two-tier system of giving. Money given through the CP route of state-to-national would remain in place. A new category, “directed giving”, wold be created to encompass all giving not through CP: Annie and Lottie offerings and direct entity contributions. The two categories would be combined for a bottom-line “Great Commission giving”, that would replace CP giving as the (for better or worse) standard for Convention support (i.e. in our discussions about candidates for trustee or officer positions).
To give the designation “teeth”, a consitutional amendment to modify Article III, section 2 to read:
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention through the Cooperative Program during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting; or for each $500.00 paid to the work of the Convention through directed giving during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting. (additions in bold)
This addition would privilege CP giving over directed giving, while also encouraging directed giving as legitimate for churches who desires to cut one or more participants out of their cooperation. (I know this is a somewhat anti-cooperative action, but I think it helps more than hurts. I am open for discussion and better ways of proceeding.)
Finally, giving to non-national, non-state efforts, such as church mission trips, would be excluded from consideration. This is due to the fact that a church might give $2500 to a team of three people to go to Africa (like my own church is doing this year) and under a broad/unqualified “Great Commission giving” definition, they would be able to maximize their allotment of Convention messengers (see Article III). In essence, we could all go to the Convention, fully enabled by the present status quo to vote on Convention matters, and not actually fund anything that the Convention does. We need a “narrow” definition that still allows for support-with-dissent,but prevents us from bringing to reality the fear of Loggins and others (myself included) of a bankrupt, yet fully “supported” Convention. I encourage support for this option.
We need to clarify the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommendation so that what is a good idea in principle will be one also in practice.
“Component #5: We believe in order for us to work together more faithfully and effectively towards
the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will ask Southern Baptists to reaffirm the Cooperative
Program as our central means of supporting Great Commission ministries; but in addition, we will ask
Southern Baptists to celebrate with our churches in their Great Commission Giving that goes directly
through the Cooperative Program, as well as any designated gifts given to the causes of the Southern
Baptist Convention, a state convention or a local association.”–Great Commission Resurgence Task
Force Progress Report, p. 27
“Please understand clearly, we are not recommending any changes to the Cooperative Program but are
reaffirming it as our central means of supporting the Great Commission ministries of the Southern
Baptist Convention.”–Ronnie Floyd, Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Progress Report, p. 27
“[We] should acknowledge and appreciate [designated gifts as an] adjustment of nomenclature.”–J.
Robert White, GCRTF Preliminary Report session
Because of a request from a fellow commentator (Louis at Praisegod Barebones
[http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-resurge.html]), I have jumped to Component 5
to discuss what many see as the greatest weakness to the GCRTF report. In essence, a new term would
be used in Southern Baptist life, Great Commission Giving, which would include both CP & designated
gifts. Allow me to use the words of another commentator as a skeleton for my own response.
Steve Loggins, Director of Missions, North Jefferson Baptist Association, Alabama, wrote a scathing
response to the GCRTF presentation
[http://noba-blog.blogspot.com/2010/03/observations-of-executive-committee.html], focusing at one
point on Component 5:
“Component 5 is a big problem for me – I do not see how ‘celebrating designated giving’ is going to
do anything but reduce support for the CP instead of enhancing it. If I am wrong, then I am wrong
and I pray that Lord reveal this also to me – I do appreciate the gifts given to the association, to
the state, to other mission causes – but if we put these along side of the CP as equal partners –
then we will find that diamond of the CP will be lost in the setting of a host of other jewels – too
numerous to count, for everyone has their own favorite mission enterprise.”
Rev. Loggins is correct in his cursory judgment…IF the term is not defined correctly. If we indeed
allow “gifts given to the association, to the state, [and] to other mission causes” to be counted as
“equal partners” with CP, we are doomed to simply transfer our funds to a pseudo-societal model,
much like the one we had before 1925. However, proper safeguards put into place should prevent this
re-appropriation from taking place at too high a level. Will churches re-direct funds under a
expanded definition? Yes, because they will have the liberty and the breadth to do so. CAn we keep
CP alive and even improve it? Yes, if we carefully determine how the money is considered as “equal”
(more on this later).
“In fact, this is already part of the problem in the loss of CP giving which facilitates what we do
as Southern Baptists.”–Steve Loggins
This would seem to be the case at first glance. Direct funding apart from CP is no doubt *part* of
the problem of why CP is underfunded (poor stewardship by Baptists in the pews and churches are a
large chunk, in my opinion). However, directed funding also keep our CP-supported entities alive.
The following data for the funding year 2007-2008 is taken from the 2009 Book of Reports, with page
numbers indicated after each example. Direct contributions to Nashville for distribution through CP
from individuals and churches makes up 3.09% of the CP budget (31). When distributed throught the CP
allocations, that 6.3 million dollars constitutes anywhere from 0.84% (Southwestern) to 3.02% (ERLC)
of an entity’s budget. Money from other sources (“designations”, “other gifts”, or “other sources”),
make up anywhere from 1.47% (ERLC) to 22.67% (New Orleans) of the entity’s budget. By comparison, CP
money allocated from the states’ contributions makes up 26.33% (Southwestern) to 94.83% (ERLC) of
the entity’s budget.
In conclusion, we already give directly, either to get around uncooperative states or for direct,
one-entity funding, even before we expand the definition. We need to allow, maybe even encourage,
direct giving, but be most careful not to revert to a societal, non-CP system in the process.
“We do not need to add more pieces to the pie – just enlarge the pie.”–Steve Loggins
I am loathe to re-hash old arguments of mine (so I will direct you to the poat where I expressed
them), but I will add two comments. The GCR will have to start with you and me and blue-haired
grandma in the pew. If we do not give, whether societally, cooperatively, with the state, around the
state, whatever, if we do not give, we will *never* fund the entities that we have commissioned to
aid us in the Great Commission. We must “enlarge the pie” by emptying our wallets.
Secondly, we must encourage each church to feel free to autonomously give *without* encouraging them
to undercut cooperative efforts. In consonance with the apostle Paul, set aside contributions for
the good of the church [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+15:26&version=NIV], but
also give to support common efforts.
[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%209:1-7&version=NIV]
The End of the Matter
What are our options?
1) We can refuse the recommendation:
This would preserve us from what many perceive is a watering-down (or at least, a putting on the
back burner) of CP emphasis. However, it does not fix the underlying problem of poor stewardship at
every level in our Convention. *I then tacitly reject this option.*
2) We can not define what “Great Commission Giving” and allow each church (association, state)
determine it for themselves:
This would leave wide open the door to anemic CP giving and pseudo-societalism that Loggins (and I)
fear. *I actively oppose this option!*
3) We can create a series of offerings, akin to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, to supplement and
emphasize direct entity giving:
This option has been proposed at one level by some, including Bart Barber
[http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2008/09/southern-baptist-convention-im-pc.html] (and myself
[http://adubhigg.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/the-seminaries-are-in-troublesbc-people-to-the-rescue/]).
This is a reasonable prima facia option, but would be a scheduling and promotion nightmare. Consider
the following yearly schedule:
JAN–promote Southern Baptist History emphasis
FEB–Historical Archives Offering
MAR–promote North American missions
APR–Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
MAY–promote state and national coordination?
JUN–ExComm Offering (during Convention?!)
JUL–promote our professors and future pastors
AUG–J.P. Boyce Seminaries Offering
SEP–promote standing firm on social issues
OCT–ERLC Offering
NOV–promote International missions
DEC–Lottie Moon Easter Offering
…and we think giving to the two mission offerings is already too low! This model also has the
genetic problem of societal giving: pew burnout. And for thsoe of us who are passionate about
supporting the work of the Convention, will we have to rob from Annie to give to the seminary? *I
must reject this option.*
4) We can move the CP distribution to the state…or preferably to the local church:
Each body of believers, under our polity, has the right to direct their gifts to the needs of their
community and their various inter-church associations. The role of promotion by the states and the
entities would be directed from the Executive Committee’s subcommittee on Convention budget to the
budget committees of the churches. collection of funds would then be at each endpoint: state office
and entity offices. However freeing and patently Baptist this seems, this option also runs the risk
of societal giving itself with the overwhelming flood of pleas and the need for expanded back
offices to produce and distribute those pleas. *I oppose this option as well.*
5) We can define giving in narrow terms and promote CP as the best of all modes:
The best option, in my opinion, is to create a two-tier system of giving. Money given through the CP
route of state-to-national would remain in place. A new category, “directed giving”, wold be created
to encompass all giving not through CP: Annie and Lottie offerings and direct entity contributions.
The two categories would be combined for a bottom-line “Great Commission giving”, that would replace
CP giving as the (for better or worse) standard for Convention support (i.e. in our discussions
about candidates for trustee or officer positions).
To give the designation “teeth”, a consitutional amendment to modify Article III, section 2
[http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/legal/constitution.asp] to read:
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members;
or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention *through the Cooperative Program* during the
fiscal year preceding the annual meeting*; or for each $500.00 paid to the work of the Convention
through directed giving during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting*.
This addition would privilege CP giving over directed giving, while also encouraging directed giving
as legitimate for churches who desires to cut one or more participants out of their cooperation. (I
know this is a somewhat anti-cooperative action, but I think it helps more than hurts. I am open for
discussion and better ways of proceeding.)
Finally, giving to non-national, non-state efforts, such as church mission trips, would be excluded
from consideration. This is due to the fact that a church might give $2500 to a team of three people
to go to Africa (like my own church is doing this year) and under a broad/unqualified “Great
Commission giving” definition, they would be able to maximize their allotment of Convention
messengers (see Article III [http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/legal/constitution.asp]). In essence, we
could all go to the Convention, fully enabled by the present status quo to vote on Convention
matters, and not actually fund anything that the Convention does. We need a “narrow” definition that
still allows for support-with-dissent,but prevents us from bringing to reality the fear of Loggins
and others (myself included) of a bankrupt, yet fully “supported” Convention. *I encourage support
for this option.
