Cooperative Program gifts that bypass state conventions

One of the eyebrow raisers about David Platt's selection as the new president of the International Mission Board was the fact that his church gave a considerable amount ($100,000) directly to the SBC Executive Committee Cooperative Program Allocation Budget. In doing so his church bypassed the Alabama Baptist State Convention which would have lopped off more than half of that amount.

The usual routine is for a church to send their CP gifts to their state convention which keeps most of the money (varies by state but well more than half on average) and sends the remainder to the Executive Committee which by an approved allocation formula keeps a tiny slice and sends the rest to the mission boards, seminaries, and Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Churches have always had the option of handling their CP gifts by sending them directly to the EC but not many have availed themselves of it.

This may be changing.

Shown below is the percentage of direct gifts to the Executive Committee CP allocation budget (those that bypass state conventions) as a percentage of total Executive Committee CP gifts:

2011-2012                 2.2%
2012-2013                 2.4%
2013-2014 (YTD)    3.0%

The route Platt's church has taken is not followed by many churches nor for much CP money, about 3% of the total for the eleven months of this fiscal year; however, the proportion is growing. The total amount of CP monies given directly is small, a little over $5 million so far this year. The EC hasn't released the number of churches who give in this manner.

The popular younger SBC minister website, B21, has an article by Jon Akin, CP: Another Way? In this article Akin suggests sending that CP check to the Executive Committee with the instruction that they send 50% back to the state convention for the sending church.

I judged that alternative to be too unwieldy to gain much traction (mainly because of the kickback from EC to the state, makes no sense to add that step) but the option of sending money directly to the EC is growing. Because of his election as IMB president, David Platt's former church is now the poster church for that methodology.

You can like it. You can dislike it. It is part of 21st Century SBC reality.

There are some things growing in Southern Baptist life, brethren. Here are three:

1. Direct gifts to the Executive Committee CP allocation budget, small amounts but growing.
2. Great Commission Giving (see my piece, UPDATED: Great Commisstion Giving vs Cooperative Program Giving, How's That Working Out?). GCG is growing fast but we haven't had much in the way of data reported, just three year's worth.
3. Designated giving received by the Executive Committee, mainly Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings which show slight increases. The EC now receives more in designated giving than in CP giving.

This is where we are. I see nothing that will change it.

It's official: Southern Baptists prefer societal giving to cooperative giving.

The SBC Executive Committee closed their fiscal year books the other day and has reported the results:

• Cooperative Program gifts: Down   $3,677,719
• Designated gifts:                   Up        $2,361,345

Note that these are the Cooperative Program and designated gifts that are received and channeled through the Executive Committee, not total CP gifts (most of which stay with the various state conventions), nor gifts given directly to our entities. Most of the designated giving would be the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings. 

The figure are self-explanatory. 

• Southern Baptist churches are giving less to the Cooperative Program, a decrease of 1.92% from the previous year.
• Southern Baptist churches are giving more in designated funds, an increase of 1.24% from the previous year.

Here's something to chew on: Southern Baptists gave more through the Executive Committee in designated giving than they did in Cooperative Program giving and thereby demonstrated that in support of our SBC entities, we prefer societal giving. I didn't check if this is a historic first or not. I suspect it is a first in our lifetime.

Cooperative Program         $188,001,275
Designated Giving              $193,106,285

Commentary?

Great Commission vs Cooperative Program Giving

When the SBC approved the new giving category, Great Commission Giving, an aggregate category that includes giving to the Cooperative Program, state convention, local association, plus any direct gifts to any SBC entity, great weeping and gnashing of teeth ensued in some quarters. Dire predictions of negative effects on the Cooperative Program were made.

2011 was the first reporting year for GCG but I don't know that much can be learned by it, since nothing can be viewed comparatively; nonetheless, here are some figures for the top giving churches in the Georgia Baptist Convention:

First Woodstock (Johnny Hunt's megachurch):
Total gifts   $1,194,200
Total CP            866,170
Total GCG      3,144,120   

Woodstock is the top Cooperative Program giving church in the GBC. Their CP gifts were 27.5% of their total Great Commission Giving meaning that they gave a lot more directly to SBC causes than to the CP.

Hebron, Dacula (formerly Larry Wynn's megachurch):
Total gifts    $902,640
Total CP         840,905
Total GCG      944,882

Only Woodstock gave more to the CP than Hebron last year. Hebron's CP gifts were 93.1% of their total Great Commission Giving indicating that their main channel for SBC giving was the CP.

Johnson Ferry (Bryant Wright's megachurch):
Total gifts     $566,079
Total CP          566,079
Total GCG       793,315

Johnson Ferry's CP gifts were 71.4% of their total Great Commission Giving.

Clearly, Woodstock and Hebron have different giving philosophies.

Local church autonomy at work.

I haven't asked but it looks like Johnson Ferry chooses to report differently than the other two. Fact is, the Great Commission Giving total for any church would be a voluntarily reported figure supplied by the church that is comprised of components that could not be easily checked. I'm not alleging anything here about JFBC, just saying that a simple comparison of GCG statistics may not be valid.


I first heard Adrian Rogers make the statement that "Dollars pay the bills, not percentages," an assertion made to counter the complaint of megachurches giving smaller percentages to the Cooperative Program than other churches. Of course he was right and that assertion is manifestly true.

Here in Georgia, Woodstock First is the top CP giving church in total gifts - $866,170. That amount is over six times larger than the aggregate Cooperative Program giving of the top five churches in the GBC in percentage Cooperative Program giving (and who average giving 39% of their total undesignated giving to the CP).

All deserve praise for their support of missions through the Cooperative Program. None deserve criticism.

My view has been that the new Great Commission Giving category will merely reflect the reality on the ground rather than generate any new giving trends. While it may be useful for comparison of candidates for SBC offices, it is beginning to look like it may be a fuzzier figure than originally thought.

But, for SBCers who are numbers junkies, here's something to chew on.

Cooperative Program or the Designated Offerings?

Are Southern Baptist Churches showing a trend which increases designated gifts to SBC entities and lowers gifts to the Cooperative Program?

The latest CP giving statistics for the current year are reported by Baptist Press in the story headlined, "CP moves ahead of budgeted goal."

Perhaps this is a good subject for positive reporting, given that not much in the way of good news is available on budgets and giving these days. Although year-to-date CP giving is slightly down, the SBC YTD budgeted goal has been covered.We're in the black. Good.

Not to be missed is the fact that total CP YTD gifts were down from the same period last year by over one-half million dollars, a decrease of about one percent.

Note this paragraph:

Designated giving of $40,729,354.48 for the same year-to-date period is 8.72 percent, or $3,267,717.60, above gifts of $37,461,636.88 received at this point last year. This total includes only those gifts received and distributed by the Executive Committee and does not reflect designated gifts contributed directly to SBC entities.

CP giving is down a half million, about a percent. Designated giving is up over three million, almost nine percent. Is there a trend here? Time will tell.

It is not lost on pastors and churches that if they want to support the International Mission Board and North American Mission Boards the strongest and most efficient way to do this is by the mission offerings or other designated channels. A dollar designated is a dollar to NAMB or the IMB. A dollar to the CP is about twenty cents to the IMB and a dime to NAMB.

Many, most, of the state conventions have made declarations of intent to move towards a CP division that keeps less in-state. The pace is glacial for this. The difference in allocations is minimal.

There is an alternative and churches are well aware of it: increase designated giving. NAMB and the IMB instantly and significantly benefit.

The Cooperative Program is our wonderful, aggregate denominational giving system. It works well enough to underwrite our vast panoply of institutions and entities. It doesn't work well in adjusting to changes over the decades.

Some among us decry going back to the societal plan. We're not going back to it. We never left it. Since the creation of the CP, we've always had a combination of the two.

Part of a single fiscal year doesn't make a trend but it's looking like the scales are tipping towards societal a bit.

Shall SBC churches defund Southern Seminary and Al Mohler?

Shall Southern Baptist churches defund Southern Seminary and Al Mohler?

Well, no, I don't think that is even remotely called for, but here in Georgia one prominent church answers “yes” and has defunded both SBTS and Southeastern Seminary. The Georgia Baptist Convention allows for such and for continuing to label a church’s giving as Cooperative Program even though the church wants to designate around up to two SBC entities.

Abilene Baptist has informed the GBC that they wish for their CP gifts to not go to SBTS and SEBTS. Their pastor, Bill Harrell is a former SBC Executive Committee chairman.

Why?

Reasons were stated: SBTS is a “breeding ground” for Calvinists; the pastor doesn’t want to help start Acts 29 churches, and he objects to the Great Commission Giving category. Another GA pastor says that this may represent a “seismic shift in SBC life.”

My fellow Georgia Baptist, Peter Lumpkins, sees this as a very significant move and as indicative of the disaffection of a large segment in SBC life. (Link here and one might note the lengthy comment stream generated by that blog article).

Plodder thinks not but understands that when some pastors get something in their own mind they might project it onto the rest of us and consider it “seismic.” We will see. I would speculate that some of the more strident anti-Mohler voices will take Mohler's recent commentary on the SBC and homosexuality and start with the same kind of squawking.

We all know that Southern Baptist conservatives are well steeped in is designated giving and not a few have itchy CP trigger fingers. I don't see anything worth pulling the trigger over here.

[The Christian Index first carried this news on June 2nd. I cannot locate the story on their site or I would link it.]

What hasn't been said about 2009-2010 Cooperative Program giving

Things are tight. Budgets are being cut. Our entities are downsizing and slicing expenditures. Nothing new in all that; but it seems that when one looks at denominational giving, more churches are choosing to hold back on their Cooperative Program giving rather than on their designated, mainly Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, offerings.

At least that's what I get from trying to sort through the latest stats. If I'm looking at this incorrectly, some astute reader may certainly correct me.

When I look through the Executive Committee’s figures for the 2009-2010 fiscal year (ended September 30th) and note that while Cooperative Program giving for the period is down 4.03%, whereas designated giving is down only about 1.5%.

Neither the Executive Committee nor Baptist Press reports the figures this way. You have to figure it out for yourself. Perhaps, long about the time when pigs fly, someone at the Executive Committee and/or Baptist Press will make this analysis and report it to us on their own.

It is no surprise to me that when pastors, church committees, and congregations take a good look at their budgets, they are less likely to cut their gifts to the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Boards than they are to the Cooperative Program.

I appreciate the way Frank Page chooses to look at reduced CP giving. He thanks God for what has been given rather than blame the churches for not giving more.

Bryant Wright has notably called for radical prioritization of our giving, that is, less to the state conventions and more to the mission boards.

Looks to me like when churches are forced to choose, they are already choosing to do just that.