Recent events are counterproductive to support of the Cooperative Program

The Baptist Courier

Published on June 6, 2006

The Cooperative Program of our convention has been and still is, in my opinion, the best method of accomplishing the work of missions and our convention. As a pastor, I led my church to give lovingly to the CP and to be aware of how our contributions made a difference in the work of God’s kingdom. There have been some events in recent days that have caused me grief, because I view them as being detrimental to the work of the convention and counterproductive to the support of the Cooperative Program.

Randall Jones

Case in point: The endorsement of Dr. Frank Page for president of the SBC by the editor and others, on the surface, seems commendable. Dr. Page is a wonderful pastor who has a heart for God, for souls and for the work of our convention. His endorsement, however (in my opinion) is being used to shroud the desire of some to dictate how, and from whom, leadership of our convention will be selected.

Let me begin by stating that the articles of endorsement for an SBC presidential candidate by both the editor and managing editor of The Baptist Courierare expressions of their personal opinions and not necessarily that of the board of trustees on which I serve. I do regret that a matter of personal political position has been taken outside of the editorial arena.

The articles and proposed legislation requiring that leaders of the SBC be chosen from messengers from churches giving at least 10 percent to the Cooperative Program raises more questions than it gives answers. For instance: How do you compute the percentage? Is it based on budget gifts only or budget gifts plus weeks of prayer gifts and other designations, or is it upon the total receipts of the church? Trivial? Hardly so, since many churches show about as much designated giving as they do budget giving. And who is to compute the percentage? Will it be the church, the association or the Baptist building? Often the way figures are represented changes the entire picture.

Another question: If we are to declare pastors/laymen from churches that do not give 10 percent as ineligible to serve the convention as elected leaders, does that also mean that all who are on payroll at the associational office, the state Baptist building, NAMB, IMB or any other state agencies or institutions must be a member of a church that gives at least 10 percent of their receipts to the Cooperative Program? Or, should we seek to determine what the total gifts of the congregation would be if every member tithed and demand 10 percent of that figure? Or, as absurdly, would we check with the church where our convention staff leaders and employees are members to determine if they are active in attendance at all services? And are they giving a tithe of their time as well as their income? When you establish a code of conduct, it will become necessary to establish a board of umpires. Who will call the strikes?

Another question: How about the new work churches who receive pastoral assistance gifts from the convention? Is that fledgling church required to give 10 percent in order to receive their small assistance? If they do not, are they to be excommunicated?

Should we declare, since we are establishing a minimum, that no church will be allowed to give more than 10 percent? After all, that could cause others who give only 10 percent to feel inadequate!

Or perhaps another startling revelation is that since CP giving is declining, isn’t it the responsibility of the paid denominational staff to raise the funds? After all, pastors are held responsible to that expectation at the local church level. What happens to a pastor when the receipts continue to decline? Cuts must be made! Salaries. Staff. Benefit packages. All are on the table to be cut. Or do we just fire him?

A trip down the road of demanding what has always been voluntary and cooperative will ultimately lead to disaster! We may have gone too far already to turn back. Good men with outstanding leadership capabilities, a heart for evangelism and for building both their church and the kingdom of God have been maligned. We have put an arrow into the heart of our convention and into the heart of these dear men and their churches by declaring them unfit for leadership because their giving does not match some other pastor or church or because they do not meet an arbitrary standard set by well meaning but no doubt misguided persons.

On a closing note: While we are making changes, maybe a motion for a name change is in order. No longer will it be called the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention. Just “The Program” will be sufficient, since it is demanded and not sought! But then, “convention” may be a misnomer as well, since this move will almost certainly lead to its demise.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editor addressing this or another subject.