Cooperative Program and the new CEO of the Florida Baptist state convention

The only thing I invest in Florida is an occasional chunk of tourist money. The only thing I bring out of Florida is sunburn and a few fish. But I do think events concerning the Florida Baptist Convention are interesting, since it is one of the largest of the state conventions and one of the heaviest contributors to the Cooperative Program on the national level.

In 2014 FBC churches, through their state convention, sent almost $30 million to the SBC Executive Committee in Nashville to be allocated mainly to the mission boards and seminaries. In 2014 the FBC kept 58.63 percent of every CP dollar it received from FBC churches.

In the way most states present their accounting, they use certain traditional techniques to explain how a CP dollar is divided (often called the "split") between their state convention and the national CP allocation budget. The accounting always makes the split appear not to be as unfavorable to the mission boards and seminaries as it looks. I've always considered this accounting to be confusing if not mildly, though not nefariously, deceptive.

Florida has said that a 50/50 split is in the works. I have doubted it would ever arrive because of the accounting system, not that my doubts have any meaning south of the St. Mary's River.

But now Florida has a new Executive who is about a generation younger that their long-serving one who just retired. The new guy, J. Thomas Green, will present a budget this year to the FBC in session which, in his words, "will have a budget that gives away 51 percent and keeps 49 percent."

Goodbye, 59/50; sayonara, 50/50. So long, funny accounting. Hello, 49/51.

This reminds me of similar action taken by the new CEO in Iowa, a much, much smaller state convention. Their split was moved by a new CEO from 85/15 to a "true" 50/50" in one fell swoop. No more funny accounting there either.

Why the sudden shift? Why not slow and steady?

Green, who is 57, about two decades younger than his predecessor, said that the goal was in part to "get the 30-somethings and 40-something-year-olds back into the mix." He commented that the convention had been working towards a 50/50 split for five years and that "we need to do it immediately." He adds that the change is the right thing to do even if this doesn't accomplish what he expects or desires.

I would like the thinking of my new state CEO were I in Florida.

Here's a new executive who will start by having to cut funding in order to give Cooperative Program money away (not just toss it in the air but see that it gets outside the state and to the mission boards and seminaries) and do so in part because he thinks this will demonstrate serious change in thinking about the CP to younger FBC pastors who are not CP enthusiasts.

My anecdotal reading of attitudes is that younger pastors are general not engaged or enthused by the Cooperative Program and, when they find out how the accounting disguises the actual distribution of the funds, they move from mild apathy to cynicism and conclude that their mission dollars are better spent elsewhere. Perhaps others read the attitudes differently. I doubt that there are many who wouldn't recognize that the attitudes of younger pastors towards the CP do not bode well for its future.

Tommy Green, the new FBC CEO, may not have solved the problem but he has done something that will get the attention of his younger colleagues.

How much difference will it make?

No one knows but if I were a pastor in Florida, I'd like what I see.

____________

Interview of the new CEO in the Florida Baptist Witness: Tommy Green talks about everything...

Baptist21, younger dude Southern Baptist site interview: Beyond Fifty Percent: B21interview with Tommy Green

Florida Baptist clergy sex abuse case a game changer?

A church planter comes to Florida to plant churches affiliated with the Florida Baptist Convention. He is not an employee of the FBC but is supported by the Convention through training, administrative services such as insurance and retirement, and is acknowledged through listing of Florida Baptist ministers. The local association assists the planter by giving him office space. The churches he plants are autonomous.

The planter is also a child sex abuser, though not one with any record of arrests or convictions.

While planting churches in Florida he abuses a minor, is arrested, and convicted.

The FBC is sued by the victim's mother and is awarded a $12.5 million judgment.

The FBC appeals, signalling confidence in its case that the man was independent and that they did not supervise the man and are not responsible for his actions.

Buried in a Florida Baptist Witness article of September 26, 2014 are a few paragraphs noting that the lawsuit has been settled out of court. Find the relevant passage beginning at the ninth paragraph in this news article.

The article notes that the settlement is confidential, will not impact the FBC's financial "bottom line," sets no precedent, and "no record will exist".

Little may be said publicly among Southern Baptist leaders and entities but it's hard to view this lawsuit, even as settled out of court, as not being a game changer for clergy sex abuse liability in the SBC, among our state conventions and various entities.

The insulation from liability that our convention structures have had as a result of local church autonomy is clearly weakened.

The sex abuse victim of an independent church planter and autonomous local church pastor sued the Florida Baptist Convention and won the suit and a large judgment. The convention settled, presumably with a monetary award and the predictable confidentiality agreement. Insurance companies were undoubtedly involved. Perhaps the FBC is not out any cash.

This isn't what a successful defense of autonomy looks like. The wall of separation between the individual pastor and the state convention (or, by extension a national SBC entity like NAMB) is cracked.

Here's what this may mean:

1. Lawyers for victims of clergy sex abuse will be encouraged to sue along the same pattern as this suit. Although the FBC was determined not to be the employer of the abuser, it did have some connectivity through background checks, training, and pastoral support.

2. Those who appoint, approve, support, and sponsor church plants and church planters have a responsibility to be thorough in vetting personnel, even if they are not considered employees. The abuser served previous churches where abuse was suspected and the FBC could have easily found this out by checking references. They did not.

3. Life is more complicated for autonomous Southern Baptists and it should be. If a church, NAMB, state convention, or local association sponsors, assists, encourages, or appoints any personnel they should be as thorough in vetting them as they are with those who are their formal employees.

The goal here is not to protect assets but to protect children from being abused at the hands of ministers, staff, and volunteers in our churches and entities.

One hopes lessons have been learned here. 

Florida Baptist churches required to file the ACP?

In the Sunshine State it seems there is less sunshine on church statistics, since the Florida Baptist Convention reports that almost one in every six FBC churches fails to file their Annual Church Profile, the bane of pastors who hate administrative tasks. The Florida Baptist Witness reported that back in May and I thought it interesting.

I assume that my colleagues who are now serving have already done the 2012 ACP. If not, you had better get on it...especially if you are in Florida.

If you are a church in friendly cooperation with the Florida Baptist Convention you will soon be required to complete it or be considered to be, I suppose, unfriendly and not in cooperation.

Let's see, a FBC affiliated church can be theologically cooperative and financially cooperative but if they are not statistically cooperative and fail to disclose how many they baptize, how many members, how much giving, etc., they are in danger of being booted?

Sounds odd, but proposed FBC Bylaw Revisions spell this out. To wit:

The recommended Florida Baptist Convention bylaws define a cooperating FBC church according to four criteria: 

1) Theological:  ...the Baptist Faith and Message, revised in the year 2000, or any other declaration of faith which parallels the tenets of our historic Baptist faith, as the theological framework.
2) Declaration:  The church shall express its intent and commitment to cooperate with the Florida Baptist State Convention by delivering a written communication to the Florida Baptist Convention, Inc.
3) Financial:  The church shall annually make a meaningful financial contribution through the Cooperative Program.  A contribution of $250 or more qualifies the church to elect and send messengers to the Florida Baptist State Convention annual meeting. 
4) Statistical:  The church shall provide an annual church statistical profile (a/k/a an ACP) to the local association with which it is associated and/or the State Convention.

Hmmm, statistical cooperation?

Really? Right up there with the Baptist Faith and Message?

In fact, they bylaw revisions include measures for annual compliance which specify that a church is not in friendly cooperation unless they do two things (1) give money, and (2) files the ACP. Failure on either will cause the church to be "counseled" followed by being investigated and having "corrective action" undertaken.

I knew Baptists loved numbers but I'd like to see if the FBC kicks churches out for not filing their ACP.

Interesting.
 

The changing landsape of clergy sex abuse in the SBC

We are autonomous; always have been and always will be.

Every church that identifies with the SBC, with any state Baptist convention, with any local association of Baptist churches hires and fires their own clergy and any crime committed by the pastor or staff is a local church matter, Responsibility and liability fall to the individual and perhaps the church.

Right?

Yes, maybe, sort-of. But not always.

Last month a jury in Florida held the Florida Baptist Convention and the Lake County Baptist Association partially liable for a pastor of two FBC church plants who was convicted of abusing a boy. (My blog on this case is here.) The FBC and association provided funding and training and were found to have been negligent in checking the perpetrator's former churches.

Damages were to be assessed and the case is continuing in that phase.

But just last week a pastor of a cowboy church in Alabama, affiliated with the Alabama Baptist Convention and the Marshall Baptist Association, was arrested on sex abuse charges for alleged crimes in Texas.

The pastor was a former convict with a long record. Evidently, someone in Alabama didn't do their homework.

No accusations have been made of crimes by the pastor while at the Alabama church but the Alabama cowboy church that he pastored has fired him.

The association's Director of Missions released a statement that refused comment due to "legal issues." No comment was reported from the Alabama Baptist Convention.

While further details weren't given, these cowboy churches almost always are congregations promoted, supported, and touted by state conventions and local associations. Were I with the Alabama Baptist Convention or the Marshall Baptist Association, I would be just a bit nervous. Who knows what the man might have done while in this church in Alabama.

Another month, another SBC clergy sex abuse report.

A few observations:

• The landscape for liability of SBC clergy has changed. State conventions, associations, along with the North American Mission Board and any other SBC entity have to be deliberate, meticulous, and thorough when finding, training, supporting, and placing clergy into churches or they may be liable for the actions of the clergy. Local church autonomy may no longer be a bulletproof defense.

• State conventions have to take the lead here, since most laypeople in churches and many associational missionaries are not sufficiently current on the legal issues in clergy sex abuse.

• NAMB has the resources to put internal controls in place immediately for their church planting program. If they have not already addressed this I would be surprised.

• It is not a bad development that Southern Baptists at every level have a strong incentive to be more careful in calling ministers. It has always been a scandal that SBC clergy who act unethically and sometimes criminally, have been able to move to new places of service with tacit approval of former churches, DOM's, and others who have knowledge but kept quiet because they didn't want to ruin a brother's ministry.

It is somewhat surprising to me that we loyal, dedicated, and supporting Southern Baptists have yet to hear from our denominational leadership on this matter.

Business as usual, where SBC clergy who behave badly easily move among our churches because of the silence of those who know, has to end. Would some denominational leader please take the lead in this? We are all harmed.

I have yet to read a syllable from the Executive Committee, Baptist Press, the Florida Baptist Witness, the Florida Baptist Convention, or other SBC entity on the issue.

We do have lawyers on the payroll, right?

Let's hear from them.

Annual Church Profile, RIP?

Well, no. It's not dead, just weathered with age and dying.

It is noteworthy that the Florida Baptist Convention reports that a significant number of their churches are not reporting data for the Annual Church Profile, that statistical summary of church attendance, finances, and other information.

An article in the Florida Baptist Witness reports that fully 15.6% of FBC churches have failed to provide such data "despite repeated efforts to collect the information."

To be frank, I came to look with some small degree of disdain at the ACP when the materials would show up in my church's mailbox each August or so. Nonetheless, I'd see to it that the information was provided, though in somewhat of a desultory manner. I confess that I got to the place where it seemed in some ways that the information was useful mainly for denominational statistical voyeurs and chest thumping ministerial braggarts who liked to see if anyone else was baptizing as many folks as they were.

Perhaps I was just a bit burned out on the thing.

Whatever the motivation or lack thereof, there is a general trend of churches tossing the ACP packet in the old garbage can and forgetting about it. It looks like 2011 will surpass 2010 and set a new record of low response rates.

Which raises some questions:

1. What will we do in associational meeting if we can't take the fresh statistics and see who's baptizing the most or who's not doing much? And, it has always been a part of evangelists' repertoire to declaim about how many SBC churches baptized no one last year. They will not know how many.

2. How will pastors searching for a new place of service know if a church that has their resume has enough money to pay them enough?

3. Great Commission Giving? Who would know? It would be extremely tedious, perhaps impossible, to go to each SBC entity and see what churches are giving directly to them.

I give credit to LifeWay and my state convention for simplifying the form and asking for less information the last few years but it looks like that will not be enough.

How about LifeWay offering a gift card to Outback Steakhouse for a completed form? That would guarantee full compliance, and quickly.

LifeWay's Ed Stetzer, our stat guru, said that the record low response rate...

"may be an indication that some churches no longer value their connection to the SBC, but I am guessing it is because many do not see how important the ACP is."

Stetzer further states that...

...“we measure points to what we value,” he added, “If we want SBC churches to grow, want new SBC churches to be added, want more individuals to be involved in Bible study and missions, and want churches to cooperate in Great Commission giving, we should be willing to measure our progress.”

Sorry, Ed, I'm not buying your second point. Filling out the ACP isn't much of an indication that we don't value growth or the progress of the Gospel. Let's go to Occam's Razor for this one. We're tired of it, or, reporting to denominational entities is not considered to have a lot of value. Stuff like that.


But even an 85% response rate is sufficient for adequate statistical analysis if we want to perform those but I might suggest that what we would really like to know is what certain individual churches and pastors are doing, or not doing.

Of course the gold standard is not the ACP, which may simply be made up numbers penciled in by whomever fills the form out in a church, but rather the state convention report of what money is actually received. Those represent real checks written to the Cooperative Program or to the various mission offerings. Attendance and baptisms, however, may or may not be real figures.

I'm a bit of a statistical junkie myself. I'd like to see full cooperation on the ACP though I fear that we will continue to set records for low compliance.

I'd take the Outback gift card, though, in an SBC triple-bypass heartbeat.