;)
tagged: budgets, Cooperative Program, John Stickley, Missions, missions giving, SBC, state conventionsMissions Giving: What to Do?
Posted by John Stickley in Baptist Life, Church & Missions
The Cooperative Program… I know you’re familiar with it. Since 1925, it’s been the centerpiece of Southern Baptist missions and, dare I say, Southern Baptist cooperation period. It seems to me that, in many ways, it’s why our convention even exists as we know it today… it’s a primary source of funding for almost everything Southern Baptist.
Of course, the Cooperative Program’s success depends on every Southern Baptist church. Each one has a critical decision to make… when considering missions, how much should it budget and how much of that budget should be given to the Cooperative Program?
You see, I’ve always leaned toward believing that high CP giving is best, both for missions and for the SBC in general. Clearly, the theory behind the Cooperative Program works… that the SBC can do so much more in terms of missions than what individual local churches can accomplish on their own…. right? And after all, not every church can afford to send missionaries to the ends of the earth… in fact, with small churches being the norm in our convention, most can’t even afford to support a single full-time missionary of any sort. For me, the question has generally been, “why wouldn’t a missions-minded church want to give everything it can to the Cooperative Program?”
But I’ve found it’s more complicated than that in recent years. Some churches take issue with individual state convention allocations, seeing inefficiencies and overlap in missions efforts. Others simply want to allocate missions dollars to efforts that their church members can be a part of… to missionaries who have a name and a face that they can be directly involved in supporting. Others see dysfunction in their state conventions, or even the SBC itself.
It can be a pretty complicated decision.
So that’s the issue I want to examine today… what factors should individual churches consider when setting up their missions giving? Perhaps more directly put, what has your church done and how did they arrive at that decision?
Perhaps we can have some productive dialog to help SBC churches with this tricky issue.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother John,
I will take a shot at the question. As you know, I was with the IMB, but now am with another organization where we “raise our own support.” Our people, including my family, receive much support from SBC churches. These churches continue to give to Lottie and the Cooperative effort, but have “added” us as well. One of the comments I have heard over and over from baptist pastors and lay leaders goes something like this, “We always give to Lottie, but it is so great to actually meet someone who works in those areas. We feel like we have a relationship with you. While we will never stop supporting the IMB, we just do not feel connected to them.”
Now, this is obviously not everyone’s experience. Larger churches are usually well connected with the IMB as well as those who have sought out a relationship with the IMB or have sent out cross-cultural workers through the IMB. We urge them to continue giving to the IMB and try to get them connected to someone, but it is difficult with the vast number of SBC churches in this country. I do know that this “connectedness” is something the IMB is always working on and rejoice for that. But, you cannot beat a relationship where a local congregation personally knows who they are supporting, receive regular updates and even sends people to help them with their short-term needs. That is a relationship… and while God’s people are giving to a cause – making disciples of all nations – they tend to be more comfortable giving in the context of a real relationship with brothers and sisters they know and trust.
My two cents ;^)
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Our church operates much like FTME conveyed. We support the cooperative program. However, there is a disconnect for the congregation; we know that we are supporting missions with our giving to the cooperative program, but we never truly see the fruit. So, we have taken up supporting other mission endeavors above and beyond our CP giving. We have entered into partnership with a Christian school and church in Peru. This is something that our people see the benefits from regularly. They don’t feel “disconnected” from what they are supporting.
We give to both the CP and other missions minsitries that we see tangible results or have a tangible connection with those involved. This keeps up the excitement and support for missions.
Brother John,
You have raised a very good question in the life of a local body. We view the cooperative program for us (the local body) as cooperating with others toward mission and ministry. So, with that in mind we (leaders) are required to understand and communicate to everyone how the money is being spent as money is taken up from the church to send out….that seems to be a biblical pattern. I have seen too many churches focus on the percentage of giving, which is in actuality meaningless and can lead to apathy and a lack of stewardship. The way we approach things,…is if there is a need we will give to that need. It is incumbent upon the receivers of the funds to clearly articulate the use of the funds for us…if not, we will not give. It is not an easy job to be accountable.
So, there are times when we will give more or less,…depending upon need and clarity.
Blessings,
Chris
The Church I pastor gives 20% to the CP. We believe in missions, and we believe in supporting our missionaries at home and abroad. We believe that these people have been especially called by God to go and stay on the field, and we believe that we, who are at home, should support these fine folks. So, we give generously to the CP and to Lottie and to Annie.
I really do not like the trend to cut, or decrease CP giving, in order to go yourself. I do agree that both should be done…if you honestly do not take away money from the career missionaries to do so. But, what I’m seeing and hearing are Churches that are honestly decreasing CP giving in order to send a team from thier Church for a week…when a career missionary…who lives in the culture…who knows the language…could do a much more effective job at reaching the people groups of a foreign country.
David
And, before anyone accuses of us of just wanting to throw money at missions, instead of being involved in missions; people from my Church have been on mission trips to Honduras, El Salvador, South Africa, Iowa, W. VA, and other places. I, personally, have been on mission trips to Honduras, Iowa, Michigan, W. VA, the MS Gulf Coast after Katrina, New York City, and Wyoming. My daughter has been to Romania, Russia, Guatemala, and maybe some other places. My wife has been to W. VA on a mission trip. My oldest son is going on a mission trip to W. VA this Summer. We may have been on more trips than these. These are the only ones I can recall at the moment.
So, we go. We just dont beleive in cutting money from career missionaries in order to go.
David
Brother David,
That is a good point…. Mission work should be normally viewed as greater lengths of time endeavoring in hard work and discipleship, as if you never left your base (current local body),…and not be viewed as some short vacation opportunity.
What we do in our local body is what we should expect at the mission as God builds His church. Money and resources are given to be distributed to those in need. There are many times that missionaries qualify as those in need.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m going to go ahead and ask a potentially inflammatory question, not necessarily because I like controversy (I don’t), but because I think it’s an important part of this entire issue.
What role does the percentages of CP funds held onto by your state convention (presumably for state missions) play in how you direct missions funds? In many states, 60% (or more) of every dollar given is kept by the state convention, meaning that of every CP dollar given, only 40 cents goes on to the SBC… 20 cents of which actually makes it to international missions. Does this cause anyone to consider designated giving?
John,
The question I would have for us is “Does your state convention do good things with the money they keep?” Maybe that’s the question that needs to be asked. What’s your state convention doing with the 60%, or 50% of CP monies that it keeps? I know here in TN that it helps to support the Baptist Children’s Homes that takes care of and works with abused and neglected children. It also helps support Church starts, and a little bit goes towards helping Pastors retirement.
Also, with state conventions, if you dont like the percentage that’s kept for the state convention, then that can be changed by the Pastors and laymen of that particular state convention. They can change it…if they want to.
David
Brother John,
I don’t think your comment breeds inflammatory thoughts. All giving should be accounted for whether local (State)or not local (IM). Our trigger is accountability and do we believe that mission work is actually being accomplished as we give. This takes some digging.
Blind percentage giving…is, well..blind. We all should consider the percentages of allocation in order to make informed decisions.
And not only percentages should be considered,…but use as well. Stewardship is not blind or assuming.
Blessings,
Chris
David is right again IMHO.
I too live in Tennessee and cooperate with the TBC in state mission work. But again, leaders must dig into the details in order to inform the church (local) of what and how things are being spent.
Blessings,
Chris
John,
What I am interested in is seeing the maximum fruit produced for our limited CP dollars. There are unique ministries that each of the three levels of denomination accomplish that would not be accomplished otherwise. The three biggest fruit producers at the national level: IMB, NAMB, and Seminaries. I see fruit at the state level in Colorado in terms of Church Planting and our Seminary Campus (receives no CP funding). As far as the association goes–I have a portable sound system in my trunk that belongs to the association. I have no problem supporting all three levels of denomination as long as they are producing fruit and not wasting too much money. 95% of the SBC CP budget goes towards the IMB, NAMB, and the six seminaries.
From the 2008-09 SBC Budget (Book of Reports, p. 33).
IMB $102,858,417.00 (50%)
NAMB $46,882,866.47 (22.79)%
Theological Education $45,586,850.41 (22.16%)
ERLC $3,394,327.76 (1.65%)
SBC Operating $6,994,372.36 (3.40%)
Are these funds being spent carefully and strategically? I don’t know–that’s why have elected Trustees at all of these entities. I do know that financial short-falls usually call for a time of trimming the fat–I suspect that all of our entities are or will be doing this.
On this particular issue, I tend to agree with my Orange-loving friend, Volfan007 (and I don’t, in general, see eye-to-eye with Orange-loving folks on much of anything
).
The assumption has been, for quite a long time, that giving through the CP, you get the “biggest bang for your missions bucks.” I think that is probably still the case. But, if some can legitimately demonstrate how that is not the case, as faithful stewards of what the Lord commend into our hands, I believe we have the responsibility to listen to and take seriously what they are saying. For me, however, the jury is still out on this question.
I also agree with those who say there should never be any sense of coercion, be it official or informal, for churches and church members to give exclusively, or a certain percentage to the CP. Each should do as they purpose to do freely, according to how they feel the Lord leading. This is not a matter for dividing fellowship over, and we must be on guard to not allow it to be.
I have served as a “faith missionary,” raising support from individuals and individual congregations, and as a CP/Lottie Moon-supported missionary with the IMB. From my perspective, both methods have their pluses and minuses. It is true that those who support individual missionaries directly tend to be more motivated to pray directly for them. However, it also puts a lot of pressure on missionaries, and especially new missionary candidates, to beat the bushes, and find support. There are exceptions. But most “faith missionaries” do not have near the quality support structure, in terms of pastoral cares, benefits, etc., on the field, that those going through the IMB/CP do. And, it is also true that the IMB is taking special measures to personalize the way they do missions support, and to maintain contact with all churches, big, small, or in between, across the convention.
The whole long-term/short-term missions dichotomy is another major factor in all of this. I definitely think there is a danger of churches pouring in all, or a major portion, of their resources to short-term trips to the detriment of supporting long-term missionaries. But, then again, a lot of people make the argument that short-term missions is one of the main things nowadays that motivates folks to be more generous in their support of long-term missions. There needs to be some hard-wired studies on all this. And I’m sure there have been some.
All in all, in the end, we need to do the best, most objective job we can at being the best stewards we can with our missions dollars. But, even more importantly, we need to guard against judging others for the way they sense the Lord leading them.
I grew up in a non-SBC Baptist church that supported its own missionaries from organizations from the ABWE to Wycliffe. Here are my two cents on supporting non-SBC missionaries:
Transparency is important. We had missionaries who were asking for more money so their kids could go to a private school in Jakarta and another who never mentioned financial woes in the one letter we recieved from them annually while another missionary had lost a major supporter and was barely trying to survive. The church refused to let me ask the one missionary for more frequent contact or to ask the missionaries for information on their income and needs. The fear was that if a missionary was well off, we might reduce their funding to support the other struggling missionary. I knew a missionary that retired and was able to buy a new home with cash because they were recieving an overabundance of support while others need to be supported well into their retirement just to get by. If your church knows how much your pastor is making, you should have no qualms about a little financial transparency with those who your church supports.
Remember retirement. Just because a missionary isn’t on the field doesn’t mean they don’t still need your support. That’s one of the reasons why I like the Cooperative Program so much. The church I grew up at supported two or three missionaries who were no longer on the field because they were retired. Did they need the support? I don’t know (because they wouldn’t let me ask), but I remember one couple definitely did. Is your church willing to support a missionary who’s barely making it by after they’ve retired?
Don’t neglect our missionaries. Our missionaries each need prayer and support for their ministries. I was going on a Study Abroad trip to Spain during college and I requested information on some missionaries there and got to meet Jan and Stephanie a.k.a. “Tep” while I was there (I mention their names primarily because David Rogers probably knows them). There are plenty of great opportunities for us to get to know our missionaries and work alongside them (ever heard of Operation GO or Hands On?), but we have to initiate contact.
These are my thoughts.
John,
After reading the post I knew any comment I made would not be based upon any first-hand knowledge of funding or organizational layout. However, my first thoughts were that any organization that began in 1925 would have needed to go through at least 6 major restructurings before now. I pictured our government constantly adding departments and never eliminating waste. Just keep funding it. Baptist churches are the same way. We simply never will remove the mural in the baptistery.
If the CP has not been reorganized lately and if there is a thick politic within, we need to begin fresh. Reorganizing the existing would be impossible and we have no time to waste. There is a way to get more for each $1 given and it needs to be discovered by someone other than me. I just come up with these great ideas.
Great post. Great comments and information for those like me.
David W….
Of course I agree with you that each church really must determine whether the missions funds they’re giving are put to good use… and I understand completely that there is a process in place for changing state convention allocations of CP dollars.
But the process of implementing change in state conventions and the SBC seems, to me, a bit like the scene in “Finding Nemo” (see clip, from 2:50 on) where the school of mackerel try to escape the trawler’s net… it’s an impossible task unless everyone decides to swim in the same direction, and very rarely will that individual voice yelling “swim down!” be heard and listened to. As such, churches that disagree with their convention’s allocations are forced to think a bit outside the box (or net, I suppose), and direct their gifts to ensure they feel the missions dollars they send are being used well.
Dave S….
There are clearly good things happening at all levels of Baptist life… the local association, the state conventions, and the SBC. It’s not an easy task determining which portions are indeed bearing fruit and are thus worth supporting. Perhaps we do simply need to trust our trustees.
David R….
From my perspective, the IMB is absolutely the most effective missions agency we can support through the CP, and is WELL worth supporting. Generic CP giving, however, doesn’t really direct a tremendous amount of money that direction, though, once it makes it’s way through state conventions and the SBC itself. Giving either through Lottie Moon or designated gifts is our only option to ensure that our missions monies are used as most church members assume they are used (I’m fairly certain John Q. Baptist in the pew thinks every CP dollar goes to a missionary in a third-world country somewhere!). Of course, that brings up another issue altogether… education of church members on the workings of CP giving itself.
You, FTME, and Andrew have all raised a good point that I want to highlight… “faith” missionaries, by nature of their support, generally have a closer connection to a larger group of local churches. I believe many churches want this kind of connection to our IMB missionaries… to have a “name and face” of someone they can be directly involved in supporting (and not just financially!). I’m not sure that all SBC churches know that there are options to establish these kind of connections with IMB missionaries. Again, perhaps an education issue.
Bruce…
I may be wrong (and just speaking from personal experience at my church), but I think many churches are struggling with this issue right now… wanting to ensure their missions monies are going to efforts that not only are fruitful, but that they can be a part of in some manner. I’m sure that changes to many of our organizations could (and should) be made to accomplish this.
All…
Thanks for the great input so far. I hope the discussion has been (and continues to be) helpful to churches struggling with questions regarding direction of their missions giving.
Getting local churches to band together to support several missionaries outside of CP would be appealing. By supporting them, you lighten the load on CP and the local Baptist churches are banded together in unity over missions. At the same time, each church keeps their separate identity. These local churches could send mission groups from each church, or together, to the mission field annually to help bare the load or build buildings. A small group created from members of each church could head up the board that organizes and manages the missionary efforts. This may sound a bit scary, however, aren’t Christians able to work together in love? Yes we are, and we need the challenge.
A church I attended in Denham Springs, LA had led a Chinese man to the Lord while he was in the US for business. He stayed in touch with us after that and felt the call to the ministry. He had already created a group in his house but needed more training. Our church paid for his and a co-works return and they went through an intense 6 week course with our elders. They returned to China as missionaries from our church. He began planting churches in China. I was amazed at each return to the US and the stories he had of God’s amazing grace. We even had groups go to China and return with many stories of how God was working there. We were not just doing the work of the ministry locally, but abroad, too.
In a way, churches in America are detached from missions. We have grown up with the CP and had missionaries come to our churches that we had no personal connection with. This could be part of the reason our church society is so detached from the real workings of God. We are more corporate minded. Our thinking is that we are part of a big operation that is doing a great work around the world. We feel warm and fuzzy, yet, if we look at the amount of money sent to CP compared to the amount of missionaries and do the math, we may be surprised. I like the personalization of ministry and service in the local church. That is how we grow to maturity and utilize our gifts. That, also, includes missions.
Like FTME (and others), I see it as a “both/and” thing.
I used to be with the IMB, and now I raise my own support. Like David said, each route has its own pros and cons. The IMB does take great care of its missionaries. On the other hand, it is nice to have a direct connection between missionary and supporters.
I’m sure most of the people who support me also support IMB missions (through Lottie Moon, etc).