Cooperative Program Giving - Why the 10% Ideal?

[Salty]

I am very thankful that I am a vet. All of my medical (execpt eye @ dental) is thru VA! PTL

 

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
I've always wondered why Southern Baptists make a big deal over giving at least 10% of their local church budget to the Cooperative Program.

Anything less than 10% is looked upon as being negative.

I suspect the reasoning is that the tithe applies to the church as well.

I know many SBC Churches that can't afford to give 10% but they do anyway and they rob the local ministry to pay for the National and International Ministry.

They can't afford to pay the Pastor's Health Insurance Premium but they make sure they get the Cooperative Program money sent to Headquarters.

My comment on the other thread about seeking a restriction on SBC presidents has to do with common participation.

The mega church generally outgive the small churches in terms of dollars but not in terms of sacrifice. Churches that give sacrificially to the CP need to be the churches that lead the convention (presidents, committee members, etc...)

Now if a church is giving 10% to CP but is unable to properly support a pastor and the local ministries with the remaining 90%, there is way more wrong the particular church than with its CP percentage.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Jonathan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
I've always wondered why Southern Baptists make a big deal over giving at least 10% of their local church budget to the Cooperative Program.

Anything less than 10% is looked upon as being negative.

I suspect the reasoning is that the tithe applies to the church as well.

I know many SBC Churches that can't afford to give 10% but they do anyway and they rob the local ministry to pay for the National and International Ministry.

They can't afford to pay the Pastor's Health Insurance Premium but they make sure they get the Cooperative Program money sent to Headquarters.

My comment on the other thread about seeking a restriction on SBC presidents has to do with common participation.

The mega church generally outgive the small churches in terms of dollars but not in terms of sacrifice. Churches that give sacrificially to the CP need to be the churches that lead the convention (presidents, committee members, etc...)

Now if a church is giving 10% to CP but is unable to properly support a pastor and the local ministries with the remaining 90%, there is way more wrong the particular church than with its CP percentage. </font>[/QUOTE]It all depends on the individual church. Size, debt load, economic level of its membership, location, and a multitude of other factors that cannot be standardized for all churches.

 

[gb93433]

I think the cooperative program is a great program for the foreign missionaries. It allows them to send their children to any school they desire. It also allows them to receive a standard of living comparable to pastoring a 900 member church. If you will look at the return rate of SBC missionaries it is nil compared to those who employ the societal method of raising support. If you will go back in Baptist history the societal method was being severely abused. There were those who were getting wealthy by raising support for those already there. It was kind of like a tax collector. So along came the coperative program. What disturbs even more is the fact that men like O.S. Hawkins who was at FBC, Dallas now works for the annuity board and received a pay increase.

But have you ever seen a denomination that didn't go down over time? The only one I can think of is the Worldwide Church of God. It is the only denomination that actually came around to believing the Bible and stood for what is right.

 

[Jonathan]

It all depends on the individual church. Size, debt load, economic level of its membership, location, and a multitude of other factors that cannot be standardized for all churches.

My point is that if a church is unable to support the ministries that the members of the church desire to support, there may be a more serious reason.

I prefer the Baptist "free church" tradition but am fully aware that probably the majority of all smaller churches are the results of church splits over trivial issues. The result of this is often that these churches are unable to do what they believe that God would have them do.

There are approx. 41,000 SBC churches in the U.S. with an average size of less than 250 members. My experience tells me that there are considerably less than 41,000 authentic, God-called pastors in the SBC (judging from the quality of preaching, pastoring, mindsets and attitudes of a number of pastors) and there are probably considerably less than enough motivated laity to sustain 41,000 churches at the present.

Imagine if the trivial were set aside and 41,000 churches of 250 or less became around 20,000 churches of 500 or so. Instead of the average church having 20 or so laypeople/church doing serious ministry, you'd probably have 50 or more. This would free up laypeople to disciple other laypeople and preachers to be better preachers.

I do know that such a thing is not going to happen because of the number of personal kingdoms that would have to be destroyed, but it is an interesting thought.

In the end, my point that a church that is unable to sustain its local ministries on 90% of its undesignated offerings is a church that has far greater problems.