A disturbing trend in Southern Baptist life over the past decade or so has been the attempt, through various means, to either control or marginalize the Woman’s Missionary Union. Since its founding in 1888 as an independent “auxiliary,” WMU has tirelessly and voluntarily assisted the Southern Baptist Convention and others in promoting the cause of missions.
Tony CartledgeIt was WMU that created both the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for international Missions and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. Mission-minded women have faithfully contributed to and promoted the offerings since their inception.
Nobody does missions like WMU. Yet, when SBC leaders reorganized the Convention in 1995, their “Covenant for a New Century” made no mention of a role for WMU. Messengers stood up for the organization and would not accept the report until an amendment was added to “affirm the valued historic relationship with Woman’s Missionary Union” and to “welcome the continued voluntary contributions of Woman’s Missionary Union in mobilizing mission prayer support, promoting missions offerings, and stimulating the missionary spirit with the Southern Baptist Convention.”
That same year, the International Mission Board sought to trademark the “Lottie Moon Christmas Offering” name in an attempt to gain control of it, and publicly criticized WMU for assisting other mission-minded Baptists. Again, however, WMU’s cause was just. It now owns the trademark for both mission offerings and allows the IMB and the North American Mission Board to use them through a licensing agreement.
During the SBC meeting in Greensboro this past year, the SBC Executive Committee proposed a motion that the WMU be “invited” to become a Convention agency – and thus subject to Convention control – rather than a self-governing auxiliary. This was done over the objections of WMU leaders, who had made it clear that they did not wish to be pressured toward a different relationship.
Again, messengers rose to the defense of WMU, voting against the measure by more than a 2-to-1 margin.
Now we learn, first from an editorial by Bob Terry in The Alabama Baptist, that the IMB plans to eliminate annual gifts traditionally provided in appreciation for WMU’s support. Similar contributions from NAMB have been reduced considerably.
The gifts haven’t been much to brag about. Terry reported that since the beginning of the Lottie Moon offering in 1888, WMU has helped raise more than $2.5 billion for international missions (that’s billion), while IMB’s contributions to WMU during that time were $9.5 million, or 0.004 of the total. More than $1 billion has come to NAMB through the Annie Armstrong offering, while NAMB’s gifts to WMU have been about $8.5 million, or 0.008 of the total, according to figures made available by WMU.
The IMB’s largest gift came in 2003, when the mission board sent WMU $325,000 while receiving more than $136 million from the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. In 2006, the mission board’s contribution dropped to $250,000, though Lottie Moon receipts were a record $138 million.
In an October letter to WMU leaders, the IMB announced that it will continue specific reimbursements to WMU for the printing and mailing of offering materials, but plans to completely phase out its annual gift to WMU by 2009.
Contributions from NAMB have also dropped sharply, though the agency has announced no plans to cut the funds altogether. For the past three years, NAMB sent its primary breadwinner just $50,000 per year, despite hitting new records in Annie Armstrong receipts each year – more than $57 million in 2006 alone.
WMU earns most of its income through literature sales. IMB and NAMB contributions were just 2.6 percent of WMU’s budget in 2006, but rising costs and declining sales have left the entity operating at a budget deficit for nine of the past 10 years, despite several cost-cutting efforts.
Do Southern Baptists really want to consider what the future might look like without a strong WMU? A 2003 study showed that churches with WMU organizations gave three times as much to the Cooperative Program and four times as much to the mission offerings as did churches without them.
No organization has done more to educate children, youth and adults about the importance of missions than WMU, yet many shortsighted churches continue to replace WMU-sponsored programs with catchy competitors that do nothing to teach missions.
If Baptists want to support the cause of missions, and I believe they do, they may need to begin thinking outside the typical offering box. While supporting the mission offerings, it wouldn’t hurt to help the mission supporters, too.
WMU is unlikely to ask for funds, and these comments are entirely unsolicited, but the organization could use the support.
Think of it this way: Imagine that the IMB and NAMB are like ships sitting in a lock where water has to be raised to a certain level before they can sail forward. WMU works like a powerful pump that works to float the boats of missions.
If we want the mission enterprise to sail on with the gospel message, we need that pump running at full speed. That requires funds for fuel and maintenance – along with respectful support for its voluntary efforts.
When supporting missions, we shouldn’t overlook the world’s finest mission supporters.