At the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in San Antonio, messengers adopted a definition of the Cooperative Program (CP). Executive Committee President Morris Chapman said it was the first “approved definition” of the CP since its adoption in 1925.
The definition says, “The Cooperative Program is Southern Baptists’ unified plan of giving through which cooperating Southern Baptist churches give a percentage of their undesignated receipts in support of their respective state convention and the Southern Baptist Convention missions and ministries.”
But one week after the annual meeting adjourned, a senior executive in an SBC entity widely circulated a proposal to change the nature of Southern Baptists’ giving plan. Basically the proposal would sever the cooperation between state conventions and the national body, having churches write separate offering checks to each area of Baptist life.
There are several other ideas in the proposal this writer finds objectionable. For example, the proposal would establish a minimum percentage of undesignated receipts a church would have to give to SBC causes in order to have messengers seated at the annual convention. It would require the two mission boards to “tithe” all receipts from their respective offerings to the SBC CP. It would count also offerings to SBC causes as CP funds.
But the most serious problem for this writer is the proposal to sever the relationship between state conventions and the national convention.
Cooperation has always been a hallmark of the CP. By giving to missions through the CP, churches were able to support all the missions causes sponsored by their state Baptist convention and the national SBC.
Prior to that time, each state and national cause had its own “agents” who toured designated areas attempting to raise funds from the churches for the cause they represented. Often multiple agents would show up at a church on the same Sunday and ask to speak. The CP ended that competition.
Cooperation is the lynchpin
Through the CP, state conventions, together with the SBC, made it possible for churches to support missions, education and benevolent work in the state, the nation and the world — all through one missions offering.
In 1925, Baptist leaders foresaw a day when Baptist churches would give 50 percent of their undesignated receipts to missions causes beyond themselves through the CP. Leaders also foresaw the day when state conventions would give 50 percent of their receipts to causes beyond the state. However, it should be remembered that in 1925, the 50 percent figure included special offerings.
It was also envisioned that the SBC would give 50 percent of its CP dollars to international missions.
The CP has always conformed to the highest principles of Baptist polity. First and foremost is the autonomy of each area of Baptist life. If a church decided to continue its missions giving through direct offerings to state and national Baptist entities, that right was respected. Every year, state conventions report designated giving alongside CP giving. So does the SBC.
But if a church decided to support state and national missions causes through the CP, that right was respected, too. Church contributions were sent to the respective state convention, where their use was decided according to the Baptist polity principle of autonomy.
Messengers from the state’s cooperating Baptist churches gathered in annual convention to decide how to best allocate the missions gifts from their churches. The CP did not envision undesignated receipts being divided evenly between state and national causes. Special offerings always were considered in the proposed 50–50 allocation.
Baptist forefathers recognized that only the Baptists of one state would be called upon to financially undergird the work of that state, while Baptists from every state would be asked to support national causes.
Autonomous state conventions decided what percentage of the funds from the churches of that state would be used for work in the state and what percentage would be forwarded to support SBC causes. Some now call this connectionalism and charge that state Baptist conventions are making decisions about the SBC budget.
No. Messengers from cooperating churches of a state are deciding how missions funds from that state channeled through the CP will be divided between state and national causes. This is a practice agreed to by both state conventions and the national convention and a lynchpin for cooperation.
State convention messengers do decide how the funds to be used in the state will be spent, but they have no input about how funds shared with the SBC will be used. This is cooperation, not connectionalism.
At the SBC level, messengers from cooperating churches gather annually to decide how funds contributed will be divided among the varying ministries supported by the national convention. Again the Baptist principle of autonomy of each area of Baptist life is preserved and respected.
And the system works. Fifty percent of the national SBC budget goes to international missions as originally envisioned. In Alabama, more than 54 percent of receipts — CP and special offerings — flow from the state to national causes. That surpasses the original goal.
Only the local church percentage trails the original vision. Alabama Baptist churches currently give about 8 percent to missions causes beyond themselves through the CP. They have never neared the 50 percent goal held out.
A vital ‘unified plan’
Still great things are being done because Baptists choose to cooperate rather than compete. We do not have a connectional polity. We have a congregational polity in which churches can choose to cooperate.
The CP helps bind Baptists together because it is our “unified plan of giving” to support the “respective state convention and the Southern Baptist Convention missions and ministries.” We dare not sever this relationship.
Share with others: