The Cooperative Program and Medium Sized Churches

These thoughts come from a conversation I was having at the convention with a friend of mine who serves as a missionary with the North American Mission Board (NAMB). Southern Baptists have the Cooperative Program (CP), where every church pays a certain amount in to help do missions together. The idea is that through cooperating, we can do far more together than we can by ourselves. The subject of the Cooperative Program was HUGE at the convention. There are some problems, however. It works great for really small churches (under 100 members) I think, because most churches that size are not necessarily thinking about local, much less global transformation (many are, but the majority is probably not). Therefore, the CP is a great tool to allow them to have a stake in reaching the world through cooperative efforts.

It works pretty well for really large churches (over 1000), because they often pay enough in to have a voice in the system, to be able to contribute, and to be heard. They swing a larger stick, so to speak, and they benefit from giving to and taking part in a system that appreciates them, and in a sense caters to their desires for participation. They also have enough left over to initiate their own ministries so that they have ownership over the mission to reach the world that God has given each local church. Part of the recent controversy is that some larger churches were directing all of that money and not sending very much of it to the CP. The smaller chruches felt that was unfair. However, the CP could conceivably work very well for them.

Here's an example of how mid-sized churches do not fair as well. Our church is planting a mission/church on the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (pathfindermission.org). We pay 10% in to the Cooperative Program (which comes to between $25,000-30,000), but when it comes time for us to initiate mission ourselves as a local church, it is very difficult to receive any reciprocal help because what we are doing might not fit exactly into the plans of the associations/conventions/mission boards that we have to work through. To do the work, we are forced to build relationships with other churches in the same boat, pool our resources, and create networks (which we have done with several other churches). That is fine, and I think it is a great thing, but it becomes a bit difficult when we send in our money to the CP, and we find out that when we want to do Kingdom things, there is no one to help us from the denomination (at least yet).

Like I said, I think that this is primarily a problem for medium sized churches who want to initiate their own work. Large churches are able to initiate their own things and still give a great deal to the CP. Small churches cannot initiate as much, but are able to take part by being a part of a larger whole. Medium sized churches, who maybe have heart, vision, and resources, are often times forced to choose between being faithful to what God has put in front of them, and giving to the Cooperative Program. We should not have to make that choice. There should be some type of way for local churches to be the initiators in taking part in "baptist causes," and still be considered faithful contributors to the CP. Maybe some type of voucher program?

Basically, the whole system needs to be revamped. As it exists right now, there is a disincentive for a medium sized local church to take initiative and be a church planting church. It is often an either/or thing in relation to the CP. You can only cut the pie so many ways. Our church gives faithfully to the Cooperative Program and we will continue to do so. We also are very involved in local and global missions and support work all over the world faithfully (approx. 40% of every dollar that has come into our church in 2006 has gone to missions). But, these are problems that need to be addressed in some way.

The Cooperative Program is/was a good thing. The bureaucracy it has created is not needed in the same way it once was because of advanced communication. There is a great deal of overlap and middle management that could be taken out and a great deal of money could be saved. There could be equipping with churches on stewardship and greater awareness of where your CP money goes. There could be greater accountability and a return to a position where the denomination works for the churches, as opposed to the churches working for the SBC (which is the position in which you are placed when your local church cannot fund church planters and you have to send them to the SBC, who really cannot fund adequately either). There just seems to be a lot of overlap and not much response for medium sized churches who want to work with the SBC, but also want to initiate what God has laid on their heart.

Here are some concrete ideas:

• What if NAMB and the state conventions created a fund out of which they gave out grants to local churches who were taking part in activities that were consistent with NAMB or the state conventions overall vision? That way, instead of creating waste through state and national bureacracy and building in disincentives for local churches to carry out the Great Commission, the CP could come back and enable the churches to be the ones carrying out the mission through support and encouragement.
• Through the emergence of best practices and practicioners, what if much of the training that NAMB and the state conventions provided was supplied by pastors and ministry leaders who worked together in networks to accomplish missional purposes? These leaders could volunteer their time to do seminars/trainings for other pastors/churches that were practical, but also tangible in that you would provide platforms for learning groups to emerge. In a way, this is what has been happening through the blogs. You would not need as much in the way of staff in the state conventions and NAMB if we did more of this than we do.

When our outgoing SBC President, Bobby Welch complains about bloggers (see here and here), he really ought to take these situations into account. This predicament is what is driving us to create our own networks for support, funding, and personnel. Unless it is addressed, it will be the slow death of the Cooperative Program, and more cheerleading and guilt tripping will not save it. I really do think it is a great concept and I want to see us support it. I just want to see our denominational entities more responsive to the INITIATIVE of local churches in mission and to have more accountability. That is a great deal of what the bloggers are talking about.