Unfortunately changing the language has not made the perceived intent anymore acceptable,” Morris Chapman said in a Baptist Press (BP) article May 29. He was referring to changes in the wording of Article IX of the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) document advanced by Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) President Johnny Hunt and written by Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.
Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee, said the latest revision no longer claims “our denominational structures have become bloated and bureaucratic at every level … and a disproportionate amount of Cooperative Program dollars (are) being kept by the state conventions.”
Nor does the document say, “our denomination must be restructured.” Now the wording is kinder — “our [convention] must be examined.”
But he concluded, “[A] study with such an obvious, predetermined bias toward restructuring … will likely undermine rather than enhance state and national cooperation and unity.” That is why he called the “intent” still unacceptable.
Chapman’s concern was amply demonstrated by International Mission Board (IMB) President Jerry Rankin when he unequivocally endorsed the GCR. According to a BP report, Rankin said Southern Baptists need to “retool ‘outdated’ denominational formulas.” He said the percentage of Cooperative Program (CP) funds being channeled toward overseas missions is not enough and called on Southern Baptists to increase the percentage going to international missions.
A few days later, Paul Chitwood, chairman of the IMB trustees, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Kentucky Baptist pastor, joined the call for changes in giving to overseas missions. In a May 26 press release, he said, “I am proposing that every state convention and our national convention revise the formula they use in dividing CP funds.” He complained that too few CP dollars from his state get to the IMB because of the percentage kept to support work in Kentucky.
Forgive me but all of this sounds like someone complaining that “I could live a lot better if I just had my neighbor’s income.” The analogy does not honor the sincerity and passion these men have for international missions, but it does convey the idea that they could do better if they had money now being used by other ministries.
Chapman said, “I cannot concur that the states are bloated or seeking to retain more and more CP money in the states. In fact, just the opposite is true.” In 2007, CP funds given by churches increased 1.15 percent from the previous year, according to the 2008 SBC annual. The amount used for work in the 50 states increased 0.31 percent. The amount forwarded to support SBC programs increased 2.55 percent. The reason? State conventions regularly look for ways to support SBC causes as well as work in their own areas.
And on the SBC level, 94.95 percent of all SBC dollars already go to the three causes championed in the GCR — the IMB (50 percent), the North American Mission Board (NAMB) (22.79 percent) and the six seminaries (22.16 percent).
Ideas abound for rearranging the chairs on the deck of our denominational ship during these difficult economic times. Some advocate a third special offering, this one dedicated to seminary education. Others call for some of the seminaries to be closed. They point out that extension centers make it possible to work with fewer institutions. Merging NAMB and the IMB into one mission board is another move discussed in some quarters. At least one paper has been circulated calling for the CP to be redefined as a partnership between the churches and the SBC, bypassing the states entirely.
Unfortunately most of the conversations seem driven by a desire for more dollars. It is more “I could live better if I just had my neighbor’s income.” But rearranging percentages will not solve the real problem, and the real problem is the slippage in CP giving by local churches. Chapman explained, “While our annual dollar amount of Cooperative Program has continued to grow, we have reached a historic low in the percentage of CP funds forwarded by the churches in spite of a restructuring that took place just over a decade ago and was hailed as the dawn of a new day for evangelism and missions.”
In the 1980s, the average percentage of undesignated funds forwarded to missions through the CP was 10.50 percent. In the 1990s, it fell to 8.73 percent. For the last five years, the percentage was 6.59 percent, according to the SBC annuals. For 2008, the percentage was 6.08 percent.
Chapman said if churches had continued to forward the same percentage of undesignated receipts they did a decade ago, then the IMB not only would have received its percentage of those extra funds each year but also an additional $35 million this year alone. NAMB and the seminaries each would have received about $17 million more this year.
Perhaps part of the reason for the decline is the abundance of missions opportunities now available to churches. Many churches have reduced CP giving in order to help underwrite missions projects and trips by members.
Perhaps part of the reason for the decline is the promotion of special projects for churches. The IMB has not been shy about asking churches to accept responsibility for a special project or critical need. Ideally funding for such projects would be in addition to CP giving. But too frequently, it is in lieu of CP giving. That may be one of the reasons some megachurches with low CP giving records want money spent on these efforts counted as CP.
Part of the reason may be that a generation of SBC leaders has not embodied strong support of or commitment to cooperative missions giving through the CP. One example will suffice. Eight days after calling on state conventions and the SBC to revise the formula for CP dollars, Chitwood announced his nomination of a SBC Pastors Conference officer whose church took in more than $4.25 million in undesignated receipts last year and gave $29,335 of it to missions through the CP. That is 0.6 percent.
If those elected to leadership positions among Southern Baptists do not reflect CP support, then who can complain when others follow their example and CP giving tumbles?
No outsider has the right to criticize decisions made by a local church. Each church is autonomous and seeks to follow the leadership of God’s Holy Spirit. It seems appropriate to recognize that those charged with guiding state and national ministries also seek to follow the leadership of God’s Holy Spirit in decisions they have to make.
In Ephesians 4:11ff, the apostle Paul listed several gifts God gives His church — apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers. As a convention, we need to appreciate all the gifts and support all the gifts appropriately rather than getting caught up in some effort to live better off our neighbor’s income.
Share with others: