I'm glad that the CP was envisioned/enacted over 75 years ago--for the good things which have resulted since that time. Today, I still favor the approach for funding ministry needs which are beyond the abilities of the average SBC church. But I think that we also realize better today than ever before that, while churches' CP gifts never have been equal, neither is the sacrifice; smaller congregations seem to sacrifice very much more in support of the partnership to which they committed years ago than do megachurches. What if all churches gave with equal sacrifice . . . ?

Ed,

Thank you for this research.

On the one hand, I love the CP and will continue to support it. On the other hand it bothers me that while there is consensus that "the most important objectives of the CP are to send and support missionaries and to provide resources to plant churches," the perception of many younger pastors that I know is that a relatively small percentage of the CP dollars from a particular church actually goes to these two things.

Blessings,
Todd

Hi Ed,

Thank you for the information and the invitation to respond. I have had the privilege of serving as a NAMB missionary since 2003. I was an Associational Missionary (Director of Missions) and National Missionary (Cleveland Hope). I now am a church planting missionary.

It has been my joy to introduce the Cooperative Program to those in our church plant. Their response had been appreciation, gratitude and a great sense of responsibility to be wise stewards of that with which we have been entrusted. Just this past Sunday, we had a couple visit us from one of our partnering churches, Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL. They were blessed to see what God is doing and to be a part of His activity. We are on the receiving end of those blessings.

It has been my experience in connecting with church planters outside the SB family, that most of them are a part or are creating something like the CP because they see the value and recognize the need for such a partnership.

While I would probably put myself in the category of "mostly positive" about the CP, it would only be because I think we can make a good thing better. God may use the present economic crisis in our country to accelerate that process.

Randy Chestnut
Lead Pastor
Church of the Hills
Cleveland, OH

Dr. Stetzer,

Thank you for researching and writing on this. I agree that the CP is a great example of cooperation and I think it is VERY important to the life of the SBC and must constantly be re-evaluated.

I do have some dissatisfaction, and most of it would simply come at the level of how much the state conventions keep and what they actually do with it. If the states would start giving 50% to the national convention as was first suggested when the CP started in 1925 then I'd be much happier. Until then I think the CP is great but could be a lot better and we are wasting resources in places they don't need to be.

Ed:

Thanks for posting the research and for inviting dialogue. I am in the category of those pastors who think the CP is ingenious but could be improved. Actually, what I think needs to be improved is how the monies are distributed. It grieves me to read about the IMB being forced to keep our work force static due to financial constraints and to hear IMB leaders talk of cutting back on training next year for the same reason. The money to increase our work force and provide for training is there--it is simply going to places that should not be receiving it.

I recommend that all denominational leaders listen to Mike Day's talk a the Baptist Identity II Conference at Union University a couple of years ago. Mike is the DOM of the Mid-South Association in Memphis. He speaks of the redundancy that exists between associations and state conventions. This needs to be considered and addressed.

Our current structures in the SBC were developed when communication was far less efficient than it is today. We need to take advantage of the technological advances that are at our disposal and consider restructuring parts of our organization to make them economically leaner. If this does not happen, and our churches begin to awaken to the fact that the IMB, which is prominently used in the promotion of the CP, actually gets only a small fraction of CP monies, then I fear support for the CP will diminish greatly.

The elephants in the room that simply cannot be ignored any longer are the state conventions. Can we justify keeping 60+% of CP dollars in the states when the IMB is doing without because of budget shortfalls?

We need bold leadership at this time to help us retool for a new day so that our cooperative efforts will have a greater impact where they are most needed.

Ed,

We have one young man who has partnered with Grace Life's church planting efforts because the Mission Board representative that he was working with told him that his distinctives and plan for his church plant were "too God-centered".

I cannot verify this but am going by what he has told us. If that is becoming the mindset of the program, we may find more who are somewhat frustrated with it.

I pray that this young man's experience will not become the norm.

I would much prefer to send our CP dollars either directly to CP Missions or through our local association. I see less and less need for the state convention and the large amounts of dollars they spend.

I would be interested to see the age breakdowns of the pastors questioned. I wonder how well the cooperative program has been communicated to younger generation pastors. One issue that I would take up with the Cooperative Program is that it isn't that cooperative with other denominations or other para-church organizations in the work that is being done world-wide. Maybe you can correct me on this but it seems that non-essential (to the immediate mission) issues crowd out mission and purpose more often than it should.

While I do not think it is time to do away with State Conventions completely, I do think it is time for our state conventions to become much leaner and more focused. There is too much replication between associational work and NAMB. I also think it may be time for the SBC to explore the formation of affinity associations, where churches come together in cooperation for a specific ministry challenge, then regroup and tackle something else when that challenge is completed.

Intersting. What kind of changes do you hear need to be made? Increasing efficiency is kind of a broad category. As a recipeint of CP funds- (I was a trustee at Southern Seminary from 93-03; a seminary student for far too long- 81-87- GGBTS; and 2004-2009(?)-SBTS) I'm not real sure I could see any more efficiencies.
My recommendation would be to increase the transparency of how the dollars are spent. I use the IMB's figures on how much it costs to support a missionary every year in promoting the Lottie Moon offering. I know NAMB provides the same kind of info, but maybe other agencies could provide a similar piece?
Random thoughts on a Monday morning-
Steve

Ed,

One of the disconnects that I have observed, at least in northern states (like Michigan and Indiana), is that while one of the purposes of CP giving is "to provide resources to plant churches," those funds are only available when substantial local funds are available as well.

The philosophy at NAMB is that "churches plant churches" and they apply that philosophy in requiring substantial financial support on the local church level. Many pastors, on the other hand, believe that their CP giving fully funds church planting in North America.

Our association ran into this disconnect recently as it desired to start a new work. The denomination's philosophy was churches plant churches, while the pastors thought that churches plant churches through the CP.

I agree that there needs to be local support. But I also believe that the present funding model (a) significantly limits the number of church plants in so-called "pioneer" states and (b) is not communicated clearly and, thus, apparent to many of the churches who give to the CP.

Blessings,
Todd

Ed and others,

The CP is great and as a graduate of SBTS, I have benefited from it immensely. I am very thankful.

Through my churches I have been financially supporting the CP since I became a new believer in 1990. The church that God allowed us to start last year gives a percentage of every dollar we receive to the CP.

But as a church planter in Boulder County, Colorado, I am learning how important it is to steward our marketing to those outside of our "family" of Southern Baptist churches. The CP could be even more effective and well resourced if the SBC would simply change it's name. The name "Southern Baptist Convention" is not branded like KFC or New York Life...those are businesses that sell particular products they are known for. We are a group of cooperating churches that are not just located in the Southern US. The SBC name does not help us to effectively steward our collective resources like it once did. Another note for whoever may read this...there is a prejudice in the West against the South...just like we find prejudices in each region of this country against the others. The regional nature of the SBC name is handicapping my ability to involve new believers and unchurched Christians in Colorado in the work of the CP. Please initiate another motion to change the name of the SBC. And let me know how I can help make that happen.

Scott Kelly
church planter/pastor, Christchurch
Boulder County, Colorado
303-877-8594 cell
www.ourchristchurch.org
www.obsessiveskier.blogspot.com

Mike, thanks.

Jake, Do you think age would make a difference... and, why?

Scott, Changing the name of the SBC might be hard. We did a survey and there was not a lot of support... you will have some "convincing" to do.

thanks for the information.

Many of our members come from non-sbc backgrounds. They like the idea of CP in principle, however, when we breakdown were the money is spent, they usually ask why more money doesn't leave the state.

Even among life-long baptists, when you break it down for them, they are likewise surprized that more money doesn't get out of the state.

As money gets tighter, and information becomes more widely comprehended, I definitely feel the allocation is going to become a big issue.

Ed,

I completely support the CP. Our church has moved from giving 5% of undesignated funds to CP to 8% in 2009. I believe that CP giving is the most effective use of our dollars for missions.

One thing I would like to see change in NC is a higher percentage of dollars going to the SBC. But that is probably a typical complaint from most pastors. :)

Good study.

Les

I have always been a firm believer in the CP, until recently. I started planting churches 7 years ago, and through that time I have grown weary of the CP and especially State conventions.

In 2005 I moved to Georgia and got involved with a church plant in East Atlanta with a struggling church planter. During this time I visited the new offices of the GA. State convention. I cannot believe the amount of money that must have been spent building this office structure. From the fountain out front in the small pond, to the flat panel TV's all over the lobby, the marble floors and to top it off the hand painted ceiling. Where is our money really going? Why do our State execs. need such a building when more than half the time they are not even in their offices.

I believe in the reason for the start of the CP, I just wonder if any of those currently running the CP remember why it was started?

Mike-
Unless I'm mistaken, CP funds did go through the local association once upon a time. Were that to happen again, state conventions would disappear as soon as their foundation funds ran out.

Scott-
Kinda hard to do when so many believe you have to be Baptist to be Christian and Southern to be sanctified ;^)

Ed-
It would not be surprising to see a strong generational bias for positive views of the CP; did LW keep those stats? Those who have been lifelong supporters of the CP do tend to equate it with the scenario of "send[ing] and support[ing] missionaries" which, from top to bottom, equals only a small minority of total CP giving.

Because there is so much overlap and bureaucracy and because each level is autonomous it is impossible to address it in a singular way. In GA we have a $1.6M level (annual cost) of "middle management" that duplicates responsibilities both above and below it and is completely unnecessary. Instead of changing the name of the SBC, the CP should be changed to Cooperative Budget for Programming.

When our Budget Team members heard of the waste and inefficiency related to the structure of the SBC they were appalled. They had no problem slashing the CP and directly supporting a few spots that line up with our vision for biblical stewardship.

My apologies to those of you who have commented and it has not posted. No comments are in moderation, but several have emailed saying they have commented here.

Sorry... we are working on it (or somebody is!).

Thanks,

Ed

Ed,

Currently the CP is designed to be a General Fund that supports all the entities in the SBC. This can cause a big problem with a local churches support of the CP when one of these entities is perceived as being guilty of doing something extremely offensive in the eyes of these local churches.

Currently an offended church is forced to either swallow the offence and continue to give to the CP or (as increasing numbers are doing) break with their long standing tradition of supporting the CP.

It would be beneficial, in my opinion, if churches were allowed to designate their CP giving to selected SBC entities if they so chose. I know that some in our leadership will not like this idea, but why should we loose the full CP support of these churches because of what one entity, or sometimes one person, has done?

Grace Always,

I am guessing age would make a difference... I don't know that it would be enormous but I would bet that if you were to poll all pastors under lets say thirty-five you would find they are less inclined to the current model. Mostly because of the way younger generation pastors view the ministry and because of political circumstances or certain stances in the SBC. Younger guys are more inclined to work with churches within their community across denominational lines and cooperate with non- denominational organizations in missions. I guess I would tend to believe younger pastors are less loyal denominationally. I may be wrong but I was just at NAMB for their missionary/chaplain training and that is still the recurring sense I got from the young church planting folks.

It would have been great to see this data correlated with data of the churches that responded.

For instance, how many of the 13% who were "generally dissatisfied" have growing churches? I know "growing churches" is completely general, but maybe it could have been defined in the survey by asking for specific information?

If a the percentage was heavy either way, that might really say something. Age could as well, because there might be a general feeling among younger pastors that the CP is an old initiative that needs replaced. I'm not saying I believe that but we don't know without the data.

Well, as a person that has served on a state staff and now serve overseas as a real live "missionary," let me clarify some things written on the blog.
First, you can designate through the CP. While it is not encouraged, it can and is often done by many churches. Also, offering by NAMB and IMB are ways to give directly.
Second, I work overseas in a place I cannot say. While we do not have an intertwined ministry with other organizations (most often at their request) we do work together to target ministry. Knowing that one group focuses on Muslim groups of less that 100,000 allows SB missionaries to be deployed elsewhere. It is not driven by an exclusive thought process rather, it is motivated by the desire to spread the resources.
Third, state conventions provide a much needed ministry- especially in states with smaller Conventions. Church planting strategies are developed at this level and resource allocation is done through the SC. Without these SC's church starting would be severely curtailed in states with fewer churches.

Great research. The CP is a great organizational tool for supporting all the entities mentioned.

However, the greatest problem is putting a "face" on the program. I get "talking points", etc. that speak to what the program does and why we should support it, but nothing compares to a personal or "church" relationship with a missionary, school, children's home, etc.

I have been involved with SBC and independent missions. The efforts to personalize the CP are much better now than in years past. Video, the renewed effort to get missionaries into local churches, and mission trips all help.

Question: Social networks promote PERSONAL contact. We IM, text, email, recommend, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc. Without building relationships with the entities within the CP, can the CP sustain in a networked world that can easily bypass it financially, personally, and organizationally?

It's all about souls,

Walt

Ed,

One of the disconnects that I have observed, at least in pioneer states, is that while one of the purposes of CP giving is "to provide resources to plant churches," those funds are only available when significant local funds are available.

The philosophy at NAMB is that "churches plant churches" and they apply that philosophy in requiring substantial financial support on the local church level. Many pastors, on the other hand, believe that their CP giving fully funds church planting in North America.

Our association ran into this disconnect recently as it desired to start a new work. The denomination's philosophy was churches plant churches, while the pastors thought that churches plant churches through the CP.

I agree that there needs to be local support. But I also believe that the present funding model (a) significantly limits the number of church plants in so-called "pioneer" states and (b) is not adequately communicated and, thus, not apparent to many of the churches who give to the CP.

Blessings,
Todd

Mike-
Unless I'm mistaken, CP funds did go through the local association once upon a time. Were that to happen again, state conventions would disappear as soon as their foundation funds ran out.

Scott-
Kinda hard to do when so many believe you have to be Baptist to be Christian and Southern to be sanctified ;^)

Greg-
Churches can do that. It's called, "Other SBC Causes" and it helped doom Ronnie Floyd's presidential candidacy. In GA it's all on the giving record forwarded to the state along with the moolah.

Ed-
It would not be surprising to see a strong generational bias for positive views of the CP; did LW keep those stats? Those who have been lifelong supporters of the CP do tend to equate it with the scenario of "send[ing] and support[ing] missionaries" which, from top to bottom, equals only a small minority of total CP distributions.

Because there is so much overlap and bureaucracy and because each level is autonomous it is impossible to address it in a singular way. In GA we have a $1.6M level (annual cost) of "middle management" that duplicates responsibilities both above and below it and is completely unnecessary. Instead of changing the name of the SBC, the CP should be changed to Cooperative Budget for Programming, since that is what most of it goes to support.

When our Budget Team members heard of the waste and inefficiency related to the structure of the SBC they were appalled. They had no problem slashing the CP and directly supporting a few spots that line up with our vision for biblical stewardship.

Ed,

Thanks for the research and information. I appreciate your ministry and insights.

I have had the privilege of serving as a NAMB (North American Mission Board, Southern Baptist) missionary since 2003, first as an Associational Missionary (Director of Missions), then as a National Missionary (Cleveland Hope) and now as a church planting missionary. I have been on the receiving end of the CP. We would not have been able to do the ministry we have been blessed to do without the CP.

It has been a joy to expose the folks in our church plant here in Northeast, Ohio to the CP and the broader SB family. Just this past weekend, we had a family visit our church from one of our partnering churches, Olive Baptist Church, Pensacola, FL. These types of partnerships are a result of cooperative missions. Our church feels a deep sense of gratitude for those who have given.

I would probably put myself in the "mostly positive" category. I think we can make a good thing better. People like to hear and see stories about changed lives. The CP is the delivery system of the resources to make that happen. Providing pastors and teachers with brief (2-3 minute) video pieces or short stories from the field that can be incorporated into messages/lessons for illustrations can be very powerful. Typically, we see these around the times of the traditional annual SB mission offerings (Christmas- Lottie Moon, Easter- Annie Armstrong). It would be great to have a resource like this that you can access year round. Again, more stories of changed lives.

Randy Chestnut
Church of the Hills
Cleveland, OH

Ed,

I said a lot in the email that I sent you about this, but I think that the CP is going to face a major problem among those that are paying attention. A couple of years ago, I did a good deal of research into what our CP dollars were being spent for. Very little actually makes it to the mission field. Take Alabama for example: 57% of our CP dollars stay in Alabama, a state with a little over 4 million people, over 3,000 SBC churches, and 80 local associations. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars that stay in Alabama. For what? Yet, we call that "missions" giving. It is not. We could do the same thing through our local churches and local associations if we would just work smarter.

The line item in the state conventions and IMB of "missions support" is where the money is going. That basically means salaries. Lots of them. More is spent in stateside support for the IMB than is given to the missionaries to do ministry with. Some stateside support is necessary, I understand, but I do not believe that money is being spent the best way that it could be. That is according to the many missionaries that I have spoken to who have told me stories of not being able to get Bibles for the field and having to buy their own office supplies out of their salaries because no funds were available.

I think that the CP is a great idea. But, if someone will do a little digging they will find that what was once a great idea has become a bloated, redundant bureaucracy. In good conscience, I cannot lead my church to fund it at the levels that we were a couple of years ago before I learned what I learned. That is sad to me because I have always been a big believer in it and I am still a big believer in cooperation among like minded churches. Until the CP gets leaner and more efficient, however, we have to missions in different ways especially with the economy choking our dollars. If there was ever a time to not waste money in redundant bureacracy, it is now.

Ed,

Thanks for the research. As a former planter in pioneer area (NY) I benefitted to some degree from CP dollars. I was thankful for it...however, I would have loved more of it (grin). Because of the attitude that "churches plant churches" that Todd B. mentioned above (and I agree with), I was also required to seek partnerships with some 18 churches...in the same way as an Independent missionary. (As a side note, it was also a little "weird" to be told by NAMB reps not to identify myself as a NAMB missionary...but as an approved NAMB partner. Hmmm. Anyway:

I now pastor an established church which partners on a local, regional, and international basis in planting churches, in addition to the CP. I do wonder why the overwhelming majority of CP dollars never leave the state...yet music ministry divisions stiil are staffed at a state level. While I love and appreciate the CP...and support the CP...I too think it, like every aspect of what we do in ministry, must be reviewed regularly to insure we are being the best stewards of the resources and not just good program managers.

Those who think in this way...are expecting that we justify every dollar in accomplishing the mission. We may choose to ignore these voices...but to do so will simply imply to those asking that we prefer for them to join a "Network" and drop their giving. We cannot "force" people to appreciate the CP more. We must simply bring the CP more in line with the vision of the generation of pastors charged with leading their churches to be good stewards. I am proud to be a part of the SBC and a vocal advocate of CP responsibility. I also think there is room to improve the way we "seem" to employ the monies entrusted to us.

Thanks for your work and insight!

THanks for the info. I agree with many of the comments above that there is muh slack that needs to be removed from the system so that more money can go directly to sending missionaries. I have mixed feeling about the program when I can give directly to missionaries, ministries, and seminaries that I support knowing that 100% will go to them or I can give to the CP and know that the vast majority of my funds will go somewhere else.

It seems that the bottom line dissatisfaction that is coming up over and over again concerns the allocation of funds. People are increasingly critical (I'd say for very good reason) of state conventions. They keep too much money and are wasteful with the money they do keep. They are not as effective in planting churches as they need to be (I respectfully disagree with our brother who worked for the state conventions who said state conventions are necessary for starting newer churches. I think they could be much more effective in church planting and need to focus on it rather than some peripheral ministries). Others are critical of not enough getting to the mission field and even wonder about the integrity of CP campaigns that constantly tout missions (and have pictures of foreign children on the field) to get people to give but so little of what is given to the Cp actually gets to the field.

It seems that people are looking at the spreadsheet saying "there's gotta be a better way to get resources to the people and places that actually need them..." Unless there is reform I'd say this dissatisfaction will increase. The CP will become (I might argue already has become) like pre-1925 Southern Baptist Convention. People will give to projects they believe in and will withhold money from projects they don't care as much for.

Ed:
Great job as always on this research. Thanks for putting this together!

I find it extremely interesting that one of the reasons many pastors support the CP is because they see "providing resources for church plants" as a critical objective. I agree that this is a critical objective, but I've been frustrated with the lack of funds actually allocated to this purpose. I am a church planter in Tennessee. The reality is that 100% of the funding for church planting here comes from a special state offering (Golden), local associations, & local churches. Even though it is common for the CP to "advertise" church planting as one of its primary aims, there is ZERO funding available from the CP for church planting in Tennessee.

A few months ago I received a CP brochure that again emphasized how the CP is used to plant churches. So I called the SBC to find out how as a church planter in Tennessee I could go about receiving some of these funds. After numerous phone calls to "get to the person who knows," I was told flat out that there was no way the CP would be used to fund plants in Tennessee because "there were already so many churches there." I hung up and thought, "And this is the person who is making the decision? They don't even understand church planting!!"

To say that I am discouraged about the CP would be putting it mildly.

One other thought on this: It is well known that pastors who lead churches that give a great deal to the CP are more highly favored in the SBC. They get committee appointments and serve on trustee boards. Could there be a quid pro quo relationship between leading your church to higher CP giving and advancement in the SBC? That is, for folks who care about that. It is liberating to not care about that. Just wondering because now that it is 2008, there really are more efficient ways to do missions than the way that we are doing the CP.

Alan,

Just curious, what missions funding models would you hold up as more efficient than CP?
Are those models more efficient because they make better use of dollars or because they have a greater Kingdom impact?

Ed,

There is no doubt that cooperation is a good thing... The problem seems to be that this has created an mostly apathetic and disconnected church. We don't know the missionaries, we don't know the people they are reaching, we don't know the plan and we are content not to care. We need cooperative missions giving for the reasons you have outlined above but in my opinion that's not enough. We have to actually go ourselves too. We have to send people from our church to the field, take on UPG's, we have to plant local churches...

One of the executives at IMB once told me.. "If the creators of the Cooperative program would have know that churches would use it as an excuse not to do missions themselves they never would have created it" that statement rings in my head.

A fascinating array of comments.

One of the more interesting things is that the comments here on the blog reflect a high level of dissatisfaction while the survey reflected a high level of satisfaction.

I know that in denominational life there is often a desire to not allow people to have opinions-- we are afraid that if they give negative responses it might “hurt the cause.” I am not of that mindset.

So, the comments reflect the views of those giving them-- and perhaps the view of others. But, they do pose some questions that, I believe, will need to be discussed and answered.

For full disclosure: I have always started churches that have given 10% to the CP. We were not required to do so, but we did because we believed in it.

Feel free to comment below as I know that there are leaders in our denomination who are reading and considering what you have to say.

Ed

Matt,

To answer your question on Dec. 24th, efficiency in missions giving depends on those giving and those administering the funds. There is no perfect model because there are no perfect people. We have a tendency to mess up just about everything we touch. The stain of sin is great upon us. So, while it is easy to find flaws in the CP, I am not naive enough to think that there are other models that are perfect.

That said, I do think that we are coming to a time, if we are not already there, where local churches can more effectively administer their funds without the involvement of a middle-man organization. All that it takes is a little involvement, some initiative and communication and you are able to directly apply resources to need. Networking with likeminded churches is important as well as resources can multiply.

We have been involved in Northern India for the past year and a half. During that time, we have created a network that has put almost $100,000 into ministry projects, church plants, schools, and development projects there. We are supporting a vast array of ministries that are seeing many come to Christ. We visit there twice a year and work with indigenous believers in a network that we helped initiate among them. We are encouraging other churches to join us. If that money had gone to the CP, less than $10,000 would have made it to international missions, and that would have been sent in a thousand different directions. We directly applied the funds to the ministry projects, did not create dependency, developed accountability, saw fruit, and spent ZERO dollars from what we raised in overhead/bureaucracy back in the States. It wasn't even that difficult. God opened many doors.

Is there a place for the IMB? Absolutely! The CP is a wonderful thing when used correctly. I am less convinced about the purpose of state conventions. But, what must happen is a partnership between a focused and streamlined missionary force and local churches who are initiating global and local missions. I believe that partnership is possible, but a lot of thinking would have to change before we celebrate Baptist churches that are doing missions by bypassing the CP because they have found more effective ways to bring the gospel to unreached areas of the world. At this point, our thinking is that if it is not CP, then it is not Southern Baptist, and that is not helpful.