ATLANTA (ABP) — A study committee is recommending the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship set a cap on funding of its “partner” organizations and bring more structure to those relationships, including signed covenant agreements and public acknowledgements of those partnerships.
The plan, proposed by an ad hoc Partnership Study Committee, was introduced to the CBF Coordinating Council Feb. 17 for review and discussion. No vote is scheduled until the council's June meeting, after a time of consultation with CBF's current partners and other constituents.
The plan would institute significant changes in CBF's partnerships, which serve as the primary way the Atlanta-based moderate group funds ministries outside its own structure and control. In additional to setting clear guidelines, the plan would limit Fellowship funding to 20 percent of any partner's revenues. Based on current budgets, three organizations would lose funding to the cap — Associated Baptist Press, Baptist Center for Ethics and Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
None of the 13 theological schools funded by CBF is close to the planned 20 percent ceiling.
However, under the plan, those schools would be placed into one of three categories, with more funding available to a handful of schools with closer and more public ties to CBF.
For partners other than theological schools, the Partnership Study Committee proposed guidelines instead of classifications because of the variety and number of funded organizations, the report said. The CBF lists about 100 partners, of which 18, labeled “historic” partners, have been part of CBF's budget for years.
The guidelines for theological-education partners creates three levels of relationship: 1) “identity partners,” limited to three-to-five schools, which can receive “institutional,” or operating, funds in addition to other support; 2) “leadership partners,” which can receive only scholarship funding and “collaborative initiative,” or project, funding; and 3) “global partners,” which are overseas or non-English institutions that can receive only scholarship and collaborative-initiative funding.
The identity partners, which were not yet selected, would have additional requirements. They would “be explicitly identified with CBF,” promote CBF through campus services and activities, and list CBF as an affiliation with accrediting agencies.
Theological-education partners at all three levels would have to agree to the mission of CBF, “encourage” CBF's core values, and support CBF's strategic initiatives. Those partnerships would be re-evaluated every five years. Theological education accounts for about $1.5 million, or about 75 percent, of CBF's funding of historic partners.
All educational partners would have access to “relational resources,” such as networking, new-student cultivation, a referral service, and non-monetary collaboration.
Funding for collaborative initiatives would be available to schools that work with each other and CBF to help churches address specific leadership-development issues. Scholarships, some of which now are available to all students, would be limited to specific students, chosen by the school and CBF, who “demonstrate leadership potential within the CBF community.” Global partners would not have that requirement.
The proposed guidelines would require all partners to acknowledge the relationship with CBF and “appropriately promote CBF.”
The report said the study committee “sought to assure that there will be mutual respect and accountability between CBF and its partners.”
“It is appropriate for CBF to expect those with whom it partners to acknowledge CBF's role and to promote the greater work of CBF,” the report said. “How this will be done will vary form partner to partner; however the failure of any partner to do so would call into question the validity of continuing that partnership.”
Some CBF supporters have complained that some partners should receive less funding than others because they have not openly acknowledged their relationships with CBF.
Although the proposed plan would eliminate institutional funding for some partners and reduce it for others, the report said the Fellowship would not abandon its role of providing operating support for CBF-related organizations.
“For many individuals and churches, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship serves as a funds-receiver to which donors may make a single contribution that is then divided among several partners and/or causes,” the study team said. “This will continue to be a need, and it provides CBF with a significant way in which to serve our many partners.”
Currently 10 theological schools receive “institutional” funding each year — Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, $228,355; McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University, $185,946; Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Kan., $163,110; Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University, $142,722; Christopher White Divinity School, Gardner-Webb University, $97,866; International Baptist Theological Seminary, Prague, $88,080; Campbell University Divinity School, $73,400; Logsdon School of Theology, Hardin-Simmons University, $16,310; and Baptist-studies programs at two non-Baptist universities — Candler School of Theology at Emory University, $24,467, and Duke Divinity School, $20,389.
Wake Forest Divinity School, Winston-Salem, N.C.; Baptist Seminary of Kentucky; and Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University receive scholarship funding but not operating funds.
Other partners receiving operating funds include: Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty $203,888; Associated Baptist Press, $132,119; Baptist Center for Ethics $81,555; Baptists Today newsjournal, $40,778; and Baptist World Alliance, $40,000.
The Partnership Study Committee said capping support for partners is consistent with CBF's purpose.
“The reason behind the 20 percent cap comes from the philosophy by which CBF has operated from its beginning,” the group said. “In its formation, CBF, through its Coordinating Council and leaders, stated that CBF would not seek to own or control institutions. Instead, it would work in cooperation (partnership) with others to accomplish its goals.”
The report said the 20 percent level is not an automatic or guaranteed funding level, nor should it be viewed as a goal. Any reductions in funding would be phased in over a three-year period. And the percentage of CBF support would be based on the partner's previous-year revenues.
Among the other guidelines:
— Funding could exceed the 20 percent cap — most likely on a short-term basis — if approved by the Coordinating Council.
— The cap usually would not apply to designated funds channeled from churches and individuals through CBF to the partner organizations.
— Partnerships could be proposed by the CBF staff, potential partners or any individual or group.
— Partnerships of limited time or scope could be instituted by the CBF staff without Coordinating Council approval. Partnerships of three years or more that are broad in scope and involve “significant funding” must be approved by the council and, at the council's option, the general assembly.
— A covenant agreement between CBF and a partner would detail the relationship and each party's responsibilities, including methods of evaluation of the relationship.
— An annual report would detail how the requirements and guidelines were met.
The guidelines also assign oversight duties for each partnership to appropriate CBF staff members, provide a means for CBF representatives to be nominated to partner boards when appropriate, enact a method for notifying organizations that are denied partnerships, and allow for exceptions to the guidelines if approved by the council.
In addition to the guidelines, the report includes “guiding principles” for partnerships — first presented by the committee last fall — that stipulate CBF partnerships are voluntary, born out of a shared mission, based on mutual trust and respect, characterized by commitment and care, and include accountability measures
In his coordinator's report, CEO Daniel Vestal endorsed the committee's report.
When organizations partner together, Vestal said, “an energy and a synergy is created.”
He said CBF's mission statement, strategic plan and current budget are evidence that CBF is “a bold and creative experiment of what it means to be a Baptist body.”
“The day of entitlement for denominational agencies is over,” he added. “Some people don't like that. Some people celebrate that. And some people couldn't care less.”
“We are trying not to recreate the denominational system … but to discern the times in which we are living.”