[1]ANCHORAGE, Alaska (BP) – Messengers to the annual meeting of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network took the unprecedented step of attempting to withhold the allocation of future Cooperative Program funds intended for the North American Mission Board.
The state convention moved Tuesday (Sept. 29) that beginning with the 2022 budget, “the percentage of Cooperative Program funds that traditionally were intended for the North American Mission Board … be retained in Alaska” and designated for a state missions fund “until such time as there is a collaborative, cooperative and mutually-agreed upon strategy with the North American Mission Board, as determined by our executive director and the executive board of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network.”
Randy Covington, the state convention’s executive director, spoke in favor of the motion. He later described the action as “somber,” but said it was “a necessary step” toward resolution of differences the state convention has with NAMB. However, the language of the motion appears to run counter to the spirit and the letter of Southern Baptists’ statement of principles of participation in the Cooperative Program, which was established in 1925. The principles were outlined in a document entitled “Relation of Southern Baptist Convention to Other Baptist Bodies,” which was adopted by messengers to the 1928 SBC Annual Meeting.
Ronnie Floyd, president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, said the action taken by Alaska’s state convention “is a unilateral breach of a 95-year system as our most trusted funding mechanism,” and added: “The Cooperative Program is not a cafeteria plan.”
The Cooperative Program is Southern Baptists’ channel of giving, through which a local church can contribute to the ministries of its state convention and the missions and ministries of the SBC through a unified giving plan to support both sets of ministries. Cooperative Program funds are collected by state conventions and disbursed by the SBC Executive Committee according to a funding formula adopted by messengers at SBC annual meetings.
Under the current budget, NAMB receives 22.79 percent of Cooperative Program funds for use in church planting and evangelism in the United States and Canada.
[2]According to the statement of principles adopted by the SBC [3] in 1928, as documented in the 1928 SBC Annual [4], the Southern Baptist Convention “has no authority to allocate funds or to divert funds from any object included in a state budget. In like manner no state body has any authority to allocate funds to or divert them from any object included in the (SBC) budget.”
It goes on to state: “The observance of the above principles by this Convention and by state bodies is essential to the integrity and perpetuity of this Convention. Unless the Southern Baptist Convention insists upon its own autonomy in all phases of its own work a process of disintegration, loss of power and initiative, and gradual decline is inevitable.”
Floyd said the action by the Alaska Baptist Resource Network “fails to fully and freely promote the collection of undesignated gifts for the SBC and instead assigns itself the role of determining allocation to our entities.”
“The messengers to the SBC, or the elected EC members acting on their behalf, are the only actors with the authority to set the allocation of the SBC Cooperative Program budget,” Floyd said. “The Cooperative Program was specifically designed almost a century ago for undesignated giving that would be distributed according to the allocations set respectively by the state conventions for their particular ministries and then by the messengers of the SBC for their entities. The churches are always free to give as they wish but the states and Southern Baptist Convention have a covenant with each other in the Cooperative Program, and we promote giving to this program as it is designed by both partners.
“The action by the Alaska Baptist Convention is a unilateral breach of a 95-year system as our most trusted funding mechanism. The state conventions are the collectors of the Cooperative Program and we are assigned to be the distributors of the Cooperative Program as the messengers have voted in our Convention.”
Asked if he was concerned the action taken by the state convention ran counter to principles of cooperation, Covington pointed instead to the “point of frustration” in Alaska over what he described as a frayed relationship with NAMB.
“The spirit of cooperation is already in jeopardy,” Covington said. “It’s already a problem and it needs to be addressed. This is how our (state) convention has chosen to answer it.”
Covington said he hopes the differences with NAMB can be resolved before the motion would take effect. If the Alaska Baptist Resources Network were to retain 22.79 percent of its churches’ Cooperative Program giving, the amount delivered to the SBC EC would still be disbursed according to the funding formula – meaning SBC entities, including NAMB, would receive the same designated percentages, but that each entity would receive less.
Floyd said he understands there will be “challenges along the way, and we must come together to address them.” He said he has worked since mid-August to facilitate a meeting between NAMB and several state conventions, including the Alaska Baptist Resource Network, but said the state leaders have declined to meet.
“I continue to hope that we can work toward a resolution that will maintain and strengthen our cooperative relationships,” Floyd said, adding that he had “expressed a deep desire” to Covington in a conversation Thursday (Oct. 1), asking him “to appeal to his colleagues to come together to meet so we can attempt to resolve this issue.”
NAMB President Kevin Ezell said in a statement released to Baptist Press that he has been and remains willing to participate in such a meeting. He also said NAMB remains fully committed to funding church planting and evangelism efforts in Alaska.
“NAMB has invested more than $8.3 million in Alaska since 2010,” Ezell said. “We will continue to invest in the state at our current rate or higher and we will pursue an aggressive church planting strategy there.”
Covington told Baptist Press he was not opposed to meeting, but added: “Negotiations are ongoing about the venue and the size of the meeting and those kinds of things.”
The action of the Alaska convention resembles action taken in 2000 by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. When the BGCT approved redirecting funds away from five of the six Southern Baptist seminaries, reallocating about $4 million to theological entities linked with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the consensus among Southern Baptist leaders was that the move was “nothing less than a rejection of the Cooperative Program,” according to R. Albert Mohler Jr. [5], president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Morris Chapman, then the president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, said at the time [6] the move “threaten(ed) the longstanding partnership between the SBC and the BGCT.”
The motion to retain funds that would otherwise have gone to NAMB was made by Michael Procter, the former executive director of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network. He referenced a letter dated Sept. 3 from Covington, which was addressed to “Alaska pastors and church leaders” and signed by members of the state convention’s executive board, which expressed concern over the state convention’s relationship with NAMB.
In the letter, Covington outlined points of friction with the entity. He described a recent proposed cooperative agreement from NAMB as “unilateral (not cooperative)” and said he had rejected the proposal. He wrote of NAMB that the entity has “no desire to have a round-table discussion with us.”
According to Covington, Procter’s motion was “overwhelmingly” approved by a voice vote of 119 messengers representing 50 of Alaska’s 120 Southern Baptist churches. Procter declined an interview request. But speaking in favor of the motion, Procter told messengers that although withholding funds that would go to NAMB would not “greatly impact their budget or their direction,” it would “express our concern and possibly be an example to other conventions similarly impacted.”
“This was a somber motion, a somber subject,” Covington said. “It was a sad day when we have to make this motion. It suggests something is broken. While none of us rejoice in doing this, it’s a necessary step to finding a resolution.”
Floyd’s role in helping to mediate such disputes is spelled out in the principles of cooperation in the 1928 SBC Annual, which delegate to the SBC Executive Committee the responsibility “to conduct all negotiations with representatives of state or other bodies necessary to clarify relations and bring about a satisfactory adjustment, with a view to complete and hearty cooperation in all matters of common interest.”
“It is important that we work to build trust,” Floyd said, “so that no one walks away from our cooperative work. Cooperation is built upon a relationship and relationship is built upon trust. I appeal to everyone, please, for the sake of our Great Commission work together, let’s come together to find a way forward. Our mission together is too important.”
Freelance writer Karen Willoughby contributed to this report.
The full text of a motion approved Sept. 29, 2020, by messengers to the 2020 Annual Meeting of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network follows:
Motion to retain North American Mission Board Cooperative Program Funds
“Pursuant to Dr. Randy Covington’s letter of September 3, 2020, detailing the current practice and strategy of the North American Mission Board to reduce and eventually end their financial support for cooperative and collaborative church planting, evangelism, church strengthening and ministry efforts in Alaska: I move that beginning with the 2022 Alaska Baptist Resource Network budget, that the percentage of Cooperative Program funds that traditionally were intended for the North American Mission Board and that were forwarded to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention for distribution, be retained in Alaska and designated for the Valeria Sherard State Mission offering until such time (as) there is a collaborative, cooperative and mutually agreed upon strategy with the North American Mission Board, as determined by our Executive Director and the Executive Board of the Alaska Baptist Resource Network.”
The complete comments of Ronnie Floyd, president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, in response to the action taken by the Alaska Baptist Resource Network follow:
“I am aware of the challenges relating to partnership agreements between six of our state conventions and the North American Mission Board. Since the middle of August I have been trying to get all parties together so we can work towards a path of cooperation for the future. Although the state leaders have thus far declined the offer to meet, I continue to hope that we can work toward a resolution that will maintain and strengthen our cooperative relationships. I expressed a deep desire to Randy Covington on Thursday, to appeal to his colleagues to come together to meet so we can attempt to resolve this issue.
“The step that Alaska has taken to propose a new process fails to fully and freely promote the collection of undesignated gifts for the SBC and instead assigns itself the role of determining allocation to our entities. The messengers to the SBC, or the elected EC members acting on their behalf, are the only actors with the authority to set the allocation of the SBC Cooperative Program budget. The Cooperative Program was specifically designed almost a century ago for undesignated giving that would be distributed according to the allocations set respectively by the state conventions for their particular ministries and then by the messengers of the SBC for their entities. The churches are always free to give as they wish but the states and Southern Baptist Convention have a covenant with each other in the Cooperative Program, and we promote giving to this program as it is designed by both partners. The action by the Alaska Baptist Convention is a unilateral breach of a 95-year system as our most trusted funding mechanism. The state conventions are the collectors of the Cooperative Program and we are assigned to be the distributors of the Cooperative Program as the messengers have voted in our Convention. The Cooperative Program is not a cafeteria plan.
“I understand we are going to have challenges along the way, and we must come together to address them. It is important that we work to build trust so that no one walks away from our cooperative work.
“Cooperation is built upon a relationship and a relationship is built upon trust. I appeal to everyone, please, for the sake of our Great Commission work together, let’s come together to find a way forward. Our mission together is too important.”