Information about the history of Cooperative Program (CP) promotion and stewardship education provided to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) Executive Committee (EC) contradicts a basic premise of one of the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) Task Force interim report proposals released Feb. 22.
The historical review, conveyed in a white paper (official document) by Roger S. “Sing” Oldham, vice president for convention relations with the SBC Executive Committee, specifically addressed “Component 4” in the GCR Task Force progress report.
That particular component of the report recommended “to move the ministry assignments of Cooperative Program and stewardship education from the Executive Committee” and “return” them to each state convention.
The proposal also called for state conventions to “reassume” their primary role in these assignments.
The GCR Task Force proposal stated that Southern Baptists “have struggled with where to place both of these assignments (CP promotion and stewardship education) in order to serve our churches most effectively.”
The GCR Task Force proposal also referred to the “1930 minutes of the Executive Committee,” saying that the 1929 Cooperative Program Commission placed responsibility for “promoting” and “gathering funds” with the states.
However, Oldham, in a white paper dated March 12, noted that contrary to the GCR Task Force assertion, the record shows Southern Baptists have been clear from the beginning that responsibility was intentionally vested at each level of cooperation — local association and state and national conventions.
They also have been clear that they intended for the national convention to represent the interests of national causes in the cooperative effort, while aiding state conventions and local associations with material support.
In an interview with Baptist Press (BP), Oldham said the GCR Task Force information relating to its “Component 4” told only “a part of the story.”
“It’s the part that is omitted that is so fascinating,” he said.
“Over the past few weeks, I revised my first submission as I reread the more than 100 pages of Executive Committee minutes from 1927 through 1931, as well as the entire proceedings of the SBC annual meetings beginning in 1923 into the 1930s,” Oldham said.
“While it is true that the SBC and the states have always maintained a collaborative relationship in Cooperative Program promotion, at no time has the SBC failed to fulfill its spiritual obligation to promote funding for its own ministries,” he continued.
Oldham’s paper includes timelines showing a continuum from 1925 (conception of the Cooperative Program) through the present that indicate the ministry assignments for CP and stewardship promotion “have always been entrusted to an SBC committee or commission.”
Oldham also said although at the national level these responsibilities have shifted among entities, “there has never been a time these two ministries were not assigned to and conducted under the watch of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
Oldham explained that the pastors who crafted the language of the early reports about cooperation “were very wise” in that they recognized the peril of competition that could threaten cooperation without the formalizing of mutual responsibilities among local associations and state and national conventions.
“They recognized that ‘no Baptist body has authority over any other,’” he said, “They affirmed that ‘there can be no question of dictation on either side.’”
Moreover, he said, the drafters of the early reports were aware of the frustrations that would strain relationships if the SBC attempted to dictate an unfunded mandate from the national convention to the states to raise money for national ministries.
“From 1925 to the present, the convention has never failed to exercise its responsibility to provide seed money to and through an SBC committee or commission for the promotion of its ministries,” he told BP, citing from his paper.
“The convention has always spent its own money to promote the Cooperative Program,” he said.
Oldham also said although “the SBC has always encouraged the states to assist in raising funds for both state causes and convention causes,” the SBC has never “tried to impose on the states” the responsibility to raise money for national entities nor bear the costs alone.
“From the beginning,” Oldham noted, “they made provision for the states to deduct the costs associated with promoting the whole Cooperative Program before the states made the state/national split with the convention.
“In fact, in the Sept. 10, 1930, minutes of the Executive Committee, the committee ‘respectfully suggested’ that each state name or employ a full-time stewardship and budget secretary to assist the states in this task,” he said.
“Of course, they reaffirmed that all administrative costs associated with promoting the national portion of the CP were to be deducted before the state/SBC split,” Oldham said. (BP)
Share with others: