I attended the South Carolina Baptist Convention Pastor’s Conference and annual convention this week. On Nov. 13, we passed a recommendation that sets into motion the decreasing of our percentage of giving to the Cooperative Program funds that stay in our state for ministry purposes. I have three observations.
First, just saying what we did leaves the average South Carolina Baptist church member (and this pastor) without a clue as to what is being talked about or how it really will affect ministries here and around the world.
Secondly, I could use the same presentation given in a previous edition of The Baptist Courier and on the screens of the convention to argue just the opposite view espoused by the budget committee who proposed the changes.
Thirdly, nobody can tell me or has even come close to explaining the “urgency” for changing our distribution percentages from the current 60 percent in-state and 40 percent out-of-state to the eventual 50/50 split.
Someone mentions the astronomical numbers of lost people in the world. Last time I looked (and I looked once in geography class back in grade school), South Carolina is part of the world, and there are lost people here also.
Someone mentions the ministry needs and objectives that our missionaries face around the world that would be improved if they had more money. I am reminded that less than two years ago, the trustees of one of our institutions in South Carolina were ready to close the door, sell out and end a significant ministry in our state. Why? Because they had needs and objectives that weren’t being met and could only be improved if they had more money.
In years past, I have sat with fellow South Carolina Baptists while we “severed ties” with both Furman University and the Baptist Hospital. One of the arguments used then was “the lack of financial support” given by the convention to the operating budgets of these institutions. They (those who supported the severing of ties) used that same “percentage” argument to achieve their goal then, too.
What I hear across the dinner table and at the water cooler is that there is a small but vocal group of people who give small amounts (“in percentages”) to the Cooperative Program but who want to control how that money is distributed. I hope that I am wrong. Just explain the urgency to change.
Reflecting on my second observation above, when you review the information given by the budget committee, our current distribution formula is in line with a dozen other similar state conventions. Again, what’s the urgency to change the distribution formula?
If the decreasing percentage of giving to the Cooperative Program from the local church is the problem, then changing how it’s spent will not correct the problem. Maybe we need to spend the five years communicating the reason that we cooperate in the first place, rather than changing “percentages” and “formulas.”
What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editor addressing this or another subject.