Author: art rogers
Missional Cooperation
Monday, April 9th, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
The way Southern Baptists have cooperated in missions since 1925 has been the Cooperative Program. The CP, of course is supplemented by special offerings, such as the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. The CP was originated so that individual ministries wouldn’t have to send out emissaries to the local congregations asking for assistance, usually met with a modest sum from a special offering taken that day. The big two, Lottie and Annie, have been exceptions to the rule and I think it is because, as I often proclaim during offering time, all the money goes to the mission field. We don’t siphon any off for administrative purposes. I perceive that this missions focus allowed them a special place in our hearts. Although, I have heard more than one life long Southern Baptist wonder when we would pay these to dear ladies off.
Lately, there has been a turn of the clock back to the turn of the previous century. I receive so many requests for special offerings, from Southern Baptist institutions, that it makes me wonder why we have the CP. Don’t get me wrong. Unlike some of my generation, I don’t want to get rid of the CP. I do think full disclosure is appropriate and that safeguarding our tithes and offerings is just as important at the denominational level as it is at the church level. Everywhere you go, there will be someone who believes that the offerings of others are a personal right of theirs. There are laymen and staff who embezzle, spend wastefully and spend selfishly. There are those in every denomination who do the same. Vigilance is appropriate, because trust is essential. Without trust, the offerings will cease. No one will give if they know the monies will be diverted to personal causes.
It is not just the Mission Boards that receive CP dollars, though. The CP also facilitates our witness by supporting our educational entities, our state conventions, our other entities. Mostly, though, it is missions and most of that is International Missions.
International Missions. It is the heart of who we are and have been for so long. The United States, and to a great degree, the Southern Baptist Convention has been a light to the nations for over a century. Reggie McNeal recently told us that Christianity is the fastest growing faith in the world - but not America. Here, we are in decline. Church attendance is down, Youth leaving church for college seldom stick with their faith. How can we do International Missions when we are now being targeted by Christians of lands that were once (and still are) targeted by us?
We are dealing with a disconnect. Missions has become something we are willing to pay for others to do, but we won’t even cross the room - even the living room? - to do it ourselves.
Out of this infertile ground a new cooperative is shaping. Several associations are beginning to take place absent geographic boundaries, but along ideological lines. Among them, many churches are simply partnering together to take the Gospel to the world. These churches are pastor by men who are teaching their congregations to go through any door - across the oceans or across the hallway, the street or the city - in order to take the Gospel to the lost. Wherever the lost are. Wherever God opens the door. These churches are being populated by congregations who are passionate about going through those doors.
How long can the old cooperative survive if it is 1) made irrelevant by thousands of new suitors asking for money that they didn’t get from the CP? 2) handicapped by those who seek to exclude earnest, qualified missionaries from member churches? 3) these churches build up partnerships around the roadblock? 4) churches, having built new partnerships, begin to feel the need to put their mission dollars toward missions they are actually doing?
Remember the Presidential race last year? All three Candidates had churches that gave to missionary causes beyond the CP. One, the one elected, pastored a church that gave heavily to the CP as well. I am not knocking Floyd or Sutton. I am wondering if they are, perhaps, a little further down the road for many SBC churches. How long will it be before so many others simply reroute their mission dollars to missions they themselves are doing?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Posts with related content
Church, General Christian, Missional, SBC
April 10th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Please explain how the CP “supports state conventions.”
April 10th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Den,
The State Conventions take the first cut of the CP and decide how much they will send on to the Exec. Comm.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Den,
Typically, CP dollars are sent from the local church to the State convention. The original plan was that the state would keep 50% and the SBC would get the other 50%. I don’t think anyone ever got there, but I could be wrong. I think every state convention keeps more than 50%, though some - a rare few - are moving closer to the original plan. Oklahoma, where I live, keeps 60% of the CP dollars given by the state’s churches.
Some churches have begun to send money straight to the Executive Committee, bypassing the state in part or even in whole.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:33 am
How long? Not long, brother. Not long.
It won’t happen because of protest either. At least not totally. It will happen because of involvement and stewardship. That’s just my opinion.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I am a denominational loyalist. I detest the idea of the CP being relegated to irrelevancy. But in the parable of the talents Jesus explains that we have an obligation. The parable has often been interpreted to be about faithful service. In fact, it is about giving the Father the most bang for the buck on the investment He has made in us. That is the issue of stewardship and missions giving, giving God the greatest return on His investment.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:03 am
if you think that there are a lot of people knocking on your door now for money, just imagine how many more will come knocking when they find out that you are no longer giving to the cp but directly funding people. granted it is the prerogative of your church to give to whatever effort they deem to honor God, however i think that the logic that you are applying is flawed. it is precisely because churches like that of floyd and sutton that the ministries of the sbc are at your doorstep begging for money. furthermore, by giving to the cp, they are already giving to “their mission dollars to missions they themselves are doing.”
i do agree that the impetus is on the church in america to reach the people here.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:52 am
swbts student,
Thanks for reading. I pray your studies are going well. I am afraid that you have misunderstood me about this, though.
First, I am not purposing anything. Merely observing. What I have stated is what I am seeing happening and my question is, “How long can the CP survive in this environment?”
Second, I am pro CP. This year, my first year at my church, I asked the Finance Committee to increase CP giving from 8% to 10%. They did, and the church agreed. On top of that, we took on the ministries of our association (Tulsa Metro has released them to the churches) and we have continued to fund Tulsa Metro at the same rate as before. In other words, we are giving a lot more to the denomination since I arrived, not less. Also, you might note that I said in the article, “Unlike some of my generation, I don’t want to get rid of the CP.”
Thirdly, I don’t take on the myriad other requests for special offerings. When they come in, they go in the trash. When I get calls, my typical answer is that we, too, are a non-profit organization and we do not donate our gifts to other non-profit organizations.
I am merely vocalizing a concern, not proposing an alternative plan. If the roadblocks of full disclosure of CP spending and unnecessary restrictions on missions cooperation are not removed, I perceive (observe, note, speculate) that the river of missions emphasis - much of which is money from local churches - is going to flow around those roadblocks, and that means it will possibly flow around the SBC as a whole.
In Texas, my home state and the state in which you now reside, many conservative minded churches not in the SBTC because of politics only send money directly to the IMB. Their only SBC participation in this one cause, and I hear of some that are waning in their loyalty there because of the roadblocks experienced in the last year.
I would disagree with you, though, about the reason the ministries have come calling. It is not because churches like Springdale and Two Rivers. That implies the purse strings have been drawn tight and now these entities must go elsewhere. CP giving set new records last year. It is not that there is less money, it is that they are not happy with their allotment and see asking the individual churches for more as the solution.
Also, the latest request I received, the one that sent me down the path of writing this article, was a request for yet another special offering. It was sponsored by the state convention to benefit an agency it already funds as part of the 60% of our CP money it already receives. They just want more.
The problem is that it is getting more and more bureaucratic and less and less missional. I don’t think the system can survive like this. We have got to be more about cooperation and more about missions.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Let me clarify the statement about not donating to other non-profit organizations. We do, of course donate to certain ministries, through our budget giving, but not in addition to our budget giving. Also, the reply is more for the paid fund raisers that call me asking for us to donate to worthy, but unrelated causes, such as Cancer foundations, March of Dimes, etc. Again, they are worthy, and I encourage everyone to prayerfully consider them, but we aren’t going to give the tithes of our congregation to that.
April 10th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I’m not an anti-CP guy. I understand the need for the infrastructure that helps thousands of people do their work through state mission efforts, NAMB and IMB. If those entities function as equippers, much like Ephesians describes the ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers, then I’m fine with continuing to support the CP and to give to the major offering emphases. I have, however, spent alot of time with people who are funded by state conventions, NAMB and the IMB. I know that those organizations try to control, with funding, what missionaries do. Many churches do the same thing. If I, as pastor/teacher, want everyone in my church to do ministry my way and use the budget to control the ministry then I’m playing the same game. We do have to live within a budget, but purse strings don’t control ministry here. I think the CP and the SBC would last as a viable equipping organization, but I don’t think it will last long if it continues to be what it is. I, and thousands of Christians have to sneak money to our missionaries so they can do what God wants them to do. We have to sneak it because if the sending agency got wind of what we were doing, they’d punish the missionaries. I understand chain of command and submission to authority. I also understand that it looks like the sending organizations don’t want missionaries to raise their own funds or fear of that hurting the CP. This is why I love being a Southern Baptist. The SBC, IMB, NAMB and the LBC can’t tell us what to do with our church or our money. That means we don’t have to check with them before obeying God.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Art,
I wrote paper on this after the convention last year. You can read it here: http://hopeinthecross.blogspot.com/2006/06/cooperative-program-and-medium-sized.html
In it, I basically say the same thing that you are saying. I applied the CP to medium sized churches like ours who are missional and are initiating their own work. Yet, we are still giving 10% to the CP. That is fine, as long as cooperation was really happening. What I mean is, cooperation only goes one way: we give to them. And, with the current IMB policies and other issues, it is becoming more and more a “them” and not an “us.” But, what if it went both ways? What if local churches who were initiating ministry and missions in unique ways could apply for grants to the CP, just like non-profits apply for grants to the government? They would be given on a merit and need basis and they would help initiating churches break new ground locally and globally. This idea occurred to me after Katrina. We started a mission on the Gulf Coast that is still running (pathfindermission.org). We went to NAMB, state conventions, and local associations, but no one would help us because we weren’t doing it through them to start. So, we built a network of churches from all over the country and have established a permanent work in Waveland-Bay St. Louis, MS. We give to that, other missions causes, and still give faithfully to the CP. But, Southern Baptists have not started a new work down there officially. We are Southern Baptists. Why is this so hard?
You are dead on in everything you say. I WANT to work with the SBC in everything we do. But, we are a church of innovators and we have lots of ideas. They rarely fit what has been approved of or what is already happening. Yet, God is using us in awesome ways. After a year of trying to work through the SBC, I am past the point of exasperation. Yet, they still want our money. We give it only because we always have. How long will that continue when we have amazing ministry opportunities opening up in India, our city, and other parts of the world? Tradition cannot win out forever when there is a world to reach. With the internet, cell phones, and easy global travel, is the CP still relevant, except to keep the bureaucracy afloat? 60% of our CP money stays in our state, and we have over 3,000 churches here? Why? Is this missional?
Sorry for the long comment, but these questions have to be asked and answered. It is not disloyal to ask these things. My hope is dying that anyone will address it before it is too late because the ones who can address benefit directly from the status quo.
April 10th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Art,
I am curious then, what your opinion is of the SBTC giving $100,000 towards the new chapel at SWBTS. These are dollars that come from the CP giving. I could have sworn they weren’t going to build that thing with CP money. I have a feeling that if more people in churches knew what their money was really going towards the CP would be in a world of hurt. Below is the link:
http://www.sbtexas.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=3707&issue=4/5/2007
April 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Brian,
It will come as no shock that since I think it is a waste of non-CP dollars, the thought of tithes going toward the chapel makes me ill.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The issue with cooperative program dollars is one of investment. Few people would pour money into an entity without expecting some level of accountability on the part of the organization. The problem for the CP is that more and more people feel as though their investment is limited to uncritical, financial support. This is ultimately unworkable on a variety of levels.
April 10th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Alan,
Our parish (county) in Louisiana is split down the geographical middle by Hwy 6. Churches on the south side of 6 are in Sabine Association. Churches on the north side of 6 are in North Sabine Assoc. There are 4 SB churches in our town. Three on the south. Three on the north. I and the pastor of the other full-time church have worked to try to bring the associations together, but people don’t want to. So, we have started a work here between our churches. We’re working on planting an african american work here since we are nearly 40% AA with few solid works and plenty of unchurched. This is easy because it’s local. How do we network with churches outside of our locale? How do we help churches form these non-geographical associations? We have to do it. While the LBC listens and every individual I’ve talked to is sympathetic, we still have to jump through their hoops. I’m not against oversight or accountability. I am against hoops.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I too have observed churches (especially ‘mega churches’ or large churches within the SBC) bypassing both the CP and LMCO to give directly to mission efforts they are personally involved in. Having served on the field for over 10 years, my evaluation is these efforts are much less effective than supporting long-term field workers who have linguistic and cultural competency to effectively reach the lost and start multiplying churches.
These churches typically send a large number of volunteers overseas on a regular basis. Even though many of these volunteers come from professional careers making nice incomes, the church pays for half or more of their missions trip with offerings. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t have a problem at all with churches sending large numbers of volunteers to the mission field. Just the opposite - I support and encourage it. However the problem lies in churches who redirect giving away from the support of long-term workers to fund volunteers. Some churches that are seeking more ‘personal involvement’ in missions sometimes spend 3 or 4 times the amount they give to the LMCO on sending their own people on mission trips. It would be like a congregation deciding to give the pastor’s salary to a church member to preach each week so that every member would have the opportunity to be ‘pastor for a week.’ That’s a nice until you think it through. The pastor who has both the experience and training to effectively lead the church is now selling used cars. It won’t be long before the church is in decline because those leading the church are simply not as effective.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
AJ,
I hear you and your argument makes good sense. But, let’s take it a bit further. Why don’t we just identify indigenous believers in many of the countries where we have missionaries and fund them? They already have the language, know the culture, and can operate much cheaper than we can. Our money would go much further. The missionaries that we do have in these countries could be catalytic people that are gifted in helping bring believers together to facilitate training and to work alongside the indigenous church. I know that we do some of that, but you wouldn’t know it by reading all of the reports from the IMB that seem to make it look like we’re doing the work ourselves.
It really only makes sense to send true missionaries to people groups that have no believers at all. Or, could we more effectively help send missionaries from one reached people group to another unreached one, and not put Americans there long term at all? We are working with indigenous believers in India who are doing just that.
I’m not saying that we don’t need missionaries. I’m just saying that the argument you use can keep being applied again and again until everyone is eliminated.
I do agree with you, however, that taking 30 people to China to do Vacation Bible Schools is probably a waste of money. You probably spent around $75,000 to do that, and while it is a good thing, what can you do with $75,000 if you are more strategic. You’ve got to think about such things. All of our money that we raise for people to go on mission trips is outside of whatever other support we give. We don’t fund it from our church budget or offerings - people are responsible themselves.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
AJ,
Neither CP nor Lottie Moon funds are dropping and volunteerism is continuing to grow. I see your point, but I don’t agree completely. Besides, neither the IMB nor NAMB adequately fund the work of our missionaries. If it were not for the people who are personally involved in their work, many of them would be drastically under-resourced.
Alan,
The only missionaries I know personally are catalytic leaders. Basically all they do is train indigenous leader and plant churches. Granted, I don’t know more than a handful of missionaries personally, but none of them is interested in owning their ministries. They are all giving them away to nationals. When we go to Africa to work with our friends there, that is exactly what we do. We do evangelism, but primarily we train indigenous leaders. We don’t try to tell them how to reach people. They know their culture. We do teach them the Bible, and we work to help them understand how to be a Christian in a world that is hostile to Christianity. We believe that the culture does not determine the message, but the message should define the culture of a Christian.
I had the same question about going myself and the expense of sending volunteers. I asked some friends serving in Africa why it wouldn’t be better for me just to send the money it takes to get me there to them for use. I just felt like it was a waste to send me there for a month when the same amount of money could do so much among the indigenous population. My friends said that there were several reasons volunteers needed to continue to come: 1st, the value of sacrifice - it’s one thing to send money, but quite another to go yourself; 2nd, the witness of sacrifice - the people we minister to recognize the sacrifice and effort made and that speaks loudly about the God we serve; 3rd, exposure - they told me that volunteers are a hundre times more effective at raising awareness of missions than the IMB is; 4th, expertise - they need people who know the Bible to come and teach indigenous leadership.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
As an IMB missionary, I think these last comments are turning into a very interesting conversation. I can see some elements of truth AJ, Alan, & Cyle are all making.
Not to discredit the other points, and at the risk of saying something perhaps a bit unpopular, I would add one other counterpoint to the 4 reasons Cyle gives for why volunteers ought to continue coming.
National believers sometimes see the enormous amount of money that is spent in order for volunteer teams to come, and ask themselves is this really a good stewardship of God’s money, when it could perhaps go a lot further and be used a lot more strategically funding local ministry. When volunteer teams bring along with them gifts and funding opportunities for national believers, they tend to be a lot more receptive to the volunteer teams. But then, we run into the dangers of unhealthy dependency.
I am not opposed to volunteer teams, but I do believe that those in local churches getting more directly involved in missions have a responsibility to at the same time bring themselves up to speed on missiological issues. It is easy to do things that in the long run end up being counter-productive if you don’t know what you are doing, in cross-cultural contexts. I also think it is better for churches to choose a long-run project or two, such as what Alan’s church is doing, where they can really develop quality relationships and come to understand the reality of the situation where they are working in a deeper way.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Great points, all. Cyle, all of the missionaries that I know are catalytic people as well. That’s where I got the idea from. However, you don’t get the impression from Southern Baptists that the primary thing that we are doing is to help indigenous believers do their job. I wonder if we are worried that our people will not so heavily fund an army of trainers as opposed to an army of missionaries. I know that missiological realities have changed, and I’m glad that we are changing with them. But, the picture of a white American going to the bush in Africa to do Bible translation and start a church (the colonial view), still dominates our imagination.
I’m all for short term teams and missionaries, by the way. I just think that we have to be strategic in how we use them so that the greatest good is accomplished. This whole thing is changing so fast as more and more global Christians become interconnected. Can we do more training through the internet? Can short term teams be MORE effective at times than a long term presence? These are questions that need to be discussed. But, I keep saying that, don’t I?
April 12th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Alan,
Thanks for your response to my post. In general, I think we agree. Yes, you can carry my argument too far.
So what is the role of the missionary? I believe the most effective role is either to go to areas that are completely unreached to begin a work (establish multiplying churches) OR go to areas that already have churches and effectively train them to finish the work on the gospel. In places where there is already a church, I don’t think the most effective thing we can do is simply win new converts. Nationals need to take on that responsibility. However, we can equip them to do that work and equip pastors to better lead their churches.
What about supporting nationals at a fraction of the cost of westerners? As long as we don’t cause dependency and rob them of their dignity in the process it is not a problem. HOWEVER, it rarely happens without causing dependency. AND, if all we do is send our money to support a national missionary who we’ve never met, I think the mission movement will die. We must keep sending our sons and daughters. Not only is it Christ’s command but it is the best way to encourage prayer and giving.
You mentioned India. The support of national missionaries from outside the country is and has for a long time caused big problems there. And most of the time, those that are giving the money are unaware. The reports from the nationals will always sound great so the funds will keep coming. What we have created is lots of pastors and missionaries who will jump ship as soon as a better support package comes along (sounds familiar!) or worse, they are drawing a salary from several sources simultaneously without the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. The heart is wicked wherever it is found. We need to be very careful we are not contributing to the problem when we think we are helping it.
So I am not against SBC churches sending VIM teams. Send more! However don’t sacrifice the support of long term missionaries in doing so.
AJ
April 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
AJ,
I share your concern about dependency and nationals that use Westerners to gain support. That is definitely something that we have to be careful of. The people that we are working with are ones that we have known for years, have a proven track record, and are doing work that is desperately needed but there is no way that they can be fully self sufficient. They also do amazing work with very little. While some are unscrupulous, not all are. Some of God’s people in foreign lands take serving Him seriously, just like Americans do. Some are dishonest, just like Americans are. But, when you find faithful people, it works really well.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Alan,
I don’t know if people will give more to missionaries or missional equippers. I do know that the whole focus of the IMB is toward church planting. Part of that I really like in that there is a move away from institutionalization of the “white missionary,” and a greater need to train indigenous leadership. Part of it makes no sense because in the move toward church planting, the IMB has done away with all the national seminaries and has adopted chronological storying as its primary method of evangelization. The IMB says that they have given the seminaries to national Baptist organizations, but in virtually every case the seminaries have failed. So, there is no local training center. And, chronological storying is not theological education. We have always taught “the apostle’s doctrine,” and I believe that our churches founded without that will be weak. So, we are careful with what we do in missions. For those that want hands-on service ministry. We go to Mexico. It’s close. We drive. Cost is low. But, when we go elsewhere overseas, we specialize, we cooperate indigenously, and we focus on providing training that is not available otherwise. A church I was with in Texas didn’t do that. They sent a team to Russia to build a church building. The Russians were quite capable of building their own building. So, we started sending funds to help them remodel existing structures. In Africa, we don’t send funds to build buildings because there is so much corruption. We spend our time training leaders who can stand against the corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted by American churches in the primary country we work in because they don’t understand the culture. Building a brick church building there is a curse, not a blessing. Paying a pastor’s salary is the kiss of death. Bringing an indigenous pastor to the states for seminary almost assures that he will never return to his country to preach.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:50 am
i did not mean to miscontrue your purpose in writing this post. i was merely responding to your final comments:
“I am not knocking Floyd or Sutton. I am wondering if they are, perhaps, a little further down the road for many SBC churches. How long will it be before so many others simply reroute their mission dollars to missions they themselves are doing?”
i guess it was the “further down the road” part that i misunderstood.
as to your assertion concerning last year’s record missions offering, it may have been a record but IT WAS INADEQUATE. i don’t want to point to what other faith traditions are spending on world missions such as the muslims or even the mormons. ultimately the moving of God’s Spirit is what is needed NOT MONEY but there are many projects that need to be funded so that the good news of Christ can go out to many people’s who have never heard. if you ask me, the imb’s budget should be somewhere in the $1-2 billion range.
i am in full agreement that “the roadblocks of full disclosure of CP spending and unnecessary restrictions on missions cooperation” should be removed or it will be detrimental to the sbc and her mission work.
“The problem is that it is getting more and more bureaucratic and less and less missional.” in a sense you are right, in a sense you are wrong. i think that you are right in the sense that the bureaucracy of the sbc is overbearing. however, i also think that the reason why you are getting all of the requests is that people are being told that there are not enough sbc dollars for their project to be funded and that they can seek outside funding. of course the people believing that God has given them a great task, they are going to step out in faith and ask as many people as possible. the system fails in that there is simply not enough cp dollars for “the main thing” projects and people working for sbc entities are allowed to ask for additional funds. herein lies the system’s failure.
A Simple Student @ SWBTS
this also raises a weakness of the cp. it oftentimes lacks the tangible quality that might entice people to give more if they knew had a picture of what they were giving money towards.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:54 am
swbts student,
It wasn’t the missions offering to which I referred, but the CP giving - which is different. CP funds are spread across the vast expanse of the SBC - some to missions, but others to things that are much more bureaucratic.
You said, “i think that you are right in the sense that the bureaucracy of the sbc is overbearing. however, i also think that the reason why you are getting all of the requests is that people are being told that there are not enough sbc dollars for their project to be funded and that they can seek outside funding.”
As long as these bureaucracies exist, as long as the programs and the institutions are priority over evangelism, people are going to balk at forking over the kind of money you think necessary. I agree with the IMB budget, by the way. They should have that much, but there is no way we can convince people to give that much money to the CP if it is going too get diverted into pet projects, or redundant efforts that actually compete with local church efforts or - and this is the kicker - replace local church ministries so that people think their obligation is to give a little money while the denominational servants do the work. This entices the congregates to be lazy in their thinking and action. It robs them of their passion. In the end, it causes them to GIVE LESS MONEY, because they are not involved.
CP/missions giving will go up the more the denomination gets out of the way and allows/requires Southern Baptists to be more involved. It is backward thinking (or maybe just not thinking that understands human nature as well) to think that the bigger the set of programs, the bigger the need for money, the more folks will appreciate not having to do it themselves, the more money they will give.
As for the numerous requests that I receive, I am not complaining that I get them. I don’t blame them for wanting us to cooperate with them on their mission efforts. We do cooperate, beyond the CP, with several of them already. But we put them in the budget and encourage our members to volunteer with them. That is what we are willing to do. We do not have special offerings for everyone that wants one.
My point is that if they are all going to be asking for money all of the time, the purpose of the CP has been thwarted. There will come a time when many faithful CP giving churches will simply “cut out the middle man,” so to speak. They will partner with whom they choose, give a little to the CP and fund missions (NAMB, IMB and church based) out of their budget.
Or, to say it another way, creating more programs and more institutions is going to lead to the CP’s demise. It’s survival is absolutely dependent on the axiom, “less is more.”