By Editor Bob Terry
Tucked away in the final point of the Cooperative Program (CP) Ad Hoc Committee report presented to messengers at the 2006 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was a call for a new definition of the CP. According to the adopted report, the SBC Executive Committee will consult with the executive directors of the state conventions to “develop a definition of what is meant by Cooperative Program monies … .”
The last definition of the CP was approved by messengers to the 1979 SBC annual meeting. That definition reads, “The Cooperative Program is a financial channel of cooperation between the state conventions and the Southern Baptist Convention which makes it possible for all persons making undesignated gifts through their church to support the missionary, education, and benevolent work in their own state convention and also the work of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
That definition differs from the original understanding of the CP approved in 1925, when the giving channel was established. Originally the emphasis was on the total support provided to cooperative endeavors of state conventions, as well as the national body. When the goal of a 50–50 division of funds between the state and national convention was adopted, it included receipts from special offerings such as the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions.
That point was made in the report of the 1983 Cooperative Program Study Committee, which said, “In the early days of the Cooperative Program, it apparently embraced distributable (undesignated) and designated funds.”
Alabama Baptists long ago surpassed the goal of 50–50 distribution when special offerings are considered. For the last five years, annual distributions to SBC causes have averaged 54.18 percent of all distributions. This has been the pattern for many years. Today the Alabama Baptist State Convention (ABSC) operates in accord with the 1979 definition. Only undesignated dollars are considered CP dollars, and every undesignated dollar received by the ABSC is distributed as a CP dollar. All other funds are considered designated funds.
Not every state convention is this clear in its definition. Some states earmark receipts up to a set amount to cover costs of certain programs before considering undesignated receipts as CP gifts to be divided with the SBC.
The SBC has begun receiving millions ($8.3 million in the last year of record) from churches bypassing state conventions. Technically the funds are categorized for “Southern Baptist Convention causes” to be distributed by the SBC CP formula. But as one SBC Executive Committee official observed, the term “SBC causes” confuses churches. Most churches that send funds directly to the Executive Committee believe they are giving through the CP. Few understand the CP is a partnership among the local church, the state convention and the SBC. If any partner is excluded, the funds are not CP funds — at least not by the 1979 definition.
Another development is the growing number of churches that have ceased giving anything to missions through the CP. Instead all of their funds are given as designated offerings.
These and other developments raise the question about what is the CP. Is it the channel of giving that makes it possible for undesignated gifts given through the church to support missionary, education and benevolent work in the state and also the work of the SBC? Is the CP the total support given to state and national causes that results in a 50–50 division of all funds (designated and undesignated) between the partners?
Just for the record, the original report establishing the CP called on churches to divide their undesignated receipts evenly between local expenses and missions causes of the state and national bodies. Today there would be rejoicing if churches averaged 10 percent given to missions causes through the CP.
It will be interesting to see what definition of the CP is ultimately proposed by the SBC Executive Committee. Some forces are pushing for a return to the societal method of giving reflected by the growing trend toward designated offerings. Some forces want to abandon the principle of cooperation between equal and autonomous partners (state and national conventions) and replace it with an over-under relationship with directives coming from the national body.
Some forces want to reshape the SBC by abandoning the associational and state convention structure with emphasis on one large national body. Some forces seem to prefer state conventions assuming some of the responsibilities historically performed by the national body. All of these forces collide at the offering plate as church members give their tithes and offerings and as churches decide how best to be a part of what God is doing in His world. I believe Alabama Baptists have it right. Only undesignated dollars are CP dollars, and every undesignated dollar is a CP dollar. This is a clear and understandable definition. Furthermore it is consistent with the 1979 definition of the CP adopted by the SBC.
Perhaps what is needed is not a new definition of the CP but a renewed effort on the part of all partners to help churches realize its strengths and advantages as it has worked over the years.
Share with others: