In a couple of different settings recently I have heard expressed sentiments that run something like the following: “Why shouldn’t we expect institutions and agencies of Baptist state fellowships, conventions or general associations to be self-supporting? Why should we continue to put them in our budgets year after year since they have other ways of generating income?”
These questions need to be taken seriously for several reasons, not the least of which is that some good and well-respected people in different states are asking them. They also deserves to be taken seriously because they have serious implications for boards, institutions and agencies that have been historic partners with state organizations.
Jim White
|
Those who know Baptist history will recall that there was a time when every agency and institution was responsible for raising its own support. Three unfortunate consequences resulted. First, churches became stressed by the sheer volume of requests for money from worthy ministries—the congregational equivalent to donor fatigue. Second, ministries with the most adept fundraisers or the most heart-wrenching appeals succeeded while other essential causes languished. And, finally, pastors became alarmed because church members diverted their tithes and offerings from their local churches to support other appealing and worthwhile ministries.
These issues gave birth to the Cooperative Program (now called Cooperative Missions in Virginia) in 1925. This remarkable solution provided relief to churches and pastors. It also provided funding for boards, agencies and institutions.
But, things have changed since 1925—or even since 2005. Cooperative missions giving from the churches to the state organizations have trended downward (although to this point in Virginia CM giving for 2012 is slightly ahead of the same point in 2011). Decreased receipts have sent shockwaves of anxiety through many churches and, by extension, through the Virginia Baptist Mission Board and the agencies and institutions supported by Virginia’s CM giving.
I have noticed in my 35+ years of ministry that whenever money gets tight, anxiety causes people to put every dollar spent under the microscope. This is true at all levels of denominational life. While this is sometimes a good thing because it forces a needed realignment of resources, in other cases anxiety creates a climate for hasty, often short-sighted decision-making.
In my estimation, an example of that occurred a couple of years ago when the budget committee of the Baptist General Association of Virginia decided to discontinue sending the Religious Herald to deacon chairpersons, church WMU directors and directors of missions in Virginia. Only an appeal on my part to the budget committee, supported by the BGAV executive director, reinstated sending the Herald to pastors.
The notion that agencies and institutions should all be treated alike fails to recognize the differences between them. In Virginia I’ve heard it asked, “All of our institutions/agencies have other funding sources besides the BGAV for their budgets (with the exception of Woman’s Missionary Union of Virginia who has a unique relationship with the BGAV). At what point should we expect them to be self sustaining?”
The North Carolina WMU can tell us about being self sustaining. That happened a few years ago when that organization courageously refused to give the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina’s executive final say in its personnel matters. Since then they have been going it on their own. They have been successful, but it hasn’t been easy.
How far should this “one size fits all” support-yourself-or-die approach be applied? WMU of Virginia seems to be granted an exemption, but even it has a major funding stream outside the BGAV in the form of the Alma Hunt state missions offering. Even the VBMB has funding coming from other sources like LifeWay, NAMB (at least for now) and even rent from other agencies and institutions for space in the Virginia Baptist Resource Center. Obviously, the VBMB is not going to support itself on what it gets in rent! But neither is the Religious Herald going to be supported by what it receives in subscriptions!
Is the VBMB one of those entities that should be self-supporting? Probably not. But if this reasoning is sound, why not? Let them charge for field strategist consultations and let college students support their own collegiate ministries. No? Of course not. It doesn’t make sense. Also, are we willing to apply the same standard to ministries of the local church? If they can’t pay their own ways, they get cut off after a few years? Probably not. And, we shouldn’t.
The truth is each board, agency and institution is unique in its mission and in its ability to raise funds apart from what it receives from CM or CP. Some rely on these funds for only a small portion of their budgets, while others, like the VBMB, WMUV and the Herald have historically been more dependent on cooperative giving. Decisions on making an agency self-sustaining needs to take into consideration the degrees of self-sustaining potential.
In the Herald’s case, for example, we have historically received about 43 percent of our operating budget from CM funds. This means that we have worked diligently to develop other funding for the remaining 57 percent. As CM funds have dropped, we have answered the challenges by cutting expenses. Now we have reached bone. Further cuts would risk our very viability.
But in the “self-supporting” scenario, that’s the way it goes. “If you can’t support yourself, you die. We might miss you, but if you are not contributing enough to the common good to support yourself, just fold your hands, close your eyes and wait for the inevitable.”
Another consideration budget committees need to consider is the value to the state organization of these links to the historic Baptist partners. The knowledgeable Baptist in the pew who places that check in the offering plate is happy to note that part of her sacrificial giving goes to support causes she cares about—children’s homes, homes for the aged, educational institutions, and, yes, even the state publication.
Now for the twist in my comments. Despite what I have said, which I believe to be true, I think the Religious Herald should cease to be dependent on CM funds. I hope that the BGAV and other state organizations will always value a free and unfettered source of news-telling. I hope they will forever value sharing the stories of great kingdom-advancing work being done in their churches and through their boards, agencies and institutions. I hope they will always be committed enough to transparency in their boards, agencies and institutions that they insist on a means of telling the truth even when it is hard to hear. I also hope that they will be committed enough to these values to provide major financial contributions to insure that these things happen.
I hope the BGAV will always be a major contributor to our work. And I hope that the Religious Herald will be much less dependent on CM funding in the years to come. But the only way that can happen is for us to seek funding from other Baptist partners, from individual Baptists and from churches in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Can the Religious Herald survive without CM support? The answer, I believe, is, “yes.” But we can’t survive only on ad income and subscriptions—especially when so much of our publishing is now done online. This is a new day. If cooperative missions is fading as a means of funding our work, we will seek to creatively rise to the challenges and continue to be a transparent voice of integrity, information and inspiration. Just as we have been for 184 years. Being around for so long may mean we are just old. Or, it may mean we are too essential to let die.
But if state organizations cease to provide support for their boards, institutions and agencies, I sadly predict that three unfortunate consequences will result. First, churches will become stressed by the sheer volume of requests for money from worthy ministries—the congregational equivalent to donor fatigue. Second, ministries with the most adept fundraisers or the most heart-wrenching appeals will succeed while other essential causes languish. And, finally, pastors will became alarmed because church members will divert their tithes and offerings from their local churches to support other appealing and worthwhile ministries.
Now, where have I heard that before?
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.