Which budget to choose?
by T. C. Pinckney Vol. IV, No. 6, August 1991
This is the time of year when church finance committees are preparing the 1992 budget. Last year many Virginia churches were caught unawares and uniformed by the Virginia Plan, the anti-SBC protest budget adopted at the state convention last November.
The Virginia Plan (VP) is so different that it is not easy to compare it to the previous state budget, but the following figures can give an idea of its impact. The percentages are based on dollar figures published on pages 26-27 of the 1990 Virginia Baptist Annual, as slightly amended at the convention. The VP cuts money flowing from Virginia to SBC seminaries by 40%. It reduces funds going to the Christian Life Commission by 65%. It increases the Foreign Mission Board by $82,500 or 2.8%, the Home Mission Board by $22,400 or 2.0%, and the Annuity Board by $1,641 or 3.6%. It increases funds to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs by $59,000 or 449% and to the Baptist World Alliance by $94,000 or 845%. It adds a new item for Associated Baptist Press (the liberal news agency created to compete with the SBC Baptist Press) and gives ABP $60,000. It moves partnership missions from the state portion of the budget to "world mission causes" (no longer Southern Baptist Causes) and increases it 335%. And it cuts other SBC agencies 47%.
Many people object to the fact that a church's donations automatically go to the Virginia Plan unless the church votes otherwise and so informs the state treasure. Many churches would assume their funds would continue to be used as in the past unless they select the VP, but no, the anti-SBC Virginia Plan is automatic unless your church chooses otherwise.
That's the bad news. The good news is that your church has the right to direct the state treasurer to use your donations in any way the church decides. Here are some of the alternatives other churches have chosen.
62/38. Before 1991 the standard state budget was divided with 62% of the money staying in the state and 38% flowing through the state to the SBC undesignated. This year many churches decided simply to stick with the 62/38 arrangement while they sorted out what to do. Others have a congregation which is of divided judgment regarding events in Virginia and the SBC, and could agree neither on the VP nor on a more conservative division, so they too went with 62/28. In either case that was an understandable decision.
50/50. The ideal of the Cooperative Program has always been that local churches would send their money to the state. The state would then keep half and send the other half to the SBC for out-of-state missions, seminaries, etc. In fact in 1983 the report of the Committee on Priorities for the 1980s recommended, "4. That the General Association make a commitment to increased giving to the worldwide Southern Baptist Convention program of missions by its allocation to the SBC budget." (Book of Reports, p. 39) In 1983 the state General Board in its recommendations to the General Association discussed the Planned Growth in Giving program and its expectations that "State Conventions - to increase the percentage of Cooperative Program funds shared with Southern Baptist Convention ministries each year, moving toward the 50/50 ideal division of Cooperative Program funds." (Book of Reports, p. 25) During the 1983 state convention Randall Robinson read the Cooperative World Mission Program recommendation from the General Board (including the portion quoted in the preceding sentence), and it was adopted with no discussion (1983 Proceedings, p. 131). Under the 1991 Virginia Plan only 17% goes to the SBC Cooperative Program (see next two paragraphs more detail).
17/83. A growing number of churches are dissatisfied with the VP, feel they should do something to balance its negative impact on SBC causes, and have adopted the 17/83 plan or some similar division. Why 17% to Virginia and 83% to the SBC Cooperative Program?
Under the VP, as noted only 17% goes to the SBC CP; 83% remains under the control of Richmond. It is important to note that not all the 83% is spent in state. $1,611,950 is designated to the Foreign Mission Board, $620,000 is designated to the Home Mission Board, and $25,000 is designated to the Annuity Board. But designated money is not Cooperative Program money. A designation is a way to control just how the funds can be used. Virginia is designating in order to control. And obviously Virginia is designating rather large amounts to the FMB and HMB because the love of Southern Baptists for our missionaries is well-known and it was thought that these designations would make the VP more palatable to Virginia Baptist churches.
Those churches who see through this fig-leaf and also note the VP items for the liberal BJCPA and Associated Baptist Press feel they must act to balance the damage done to the SBC by those that allow their funds to be distributed through the Virginia Plan. Therefore, those churches simply reverse the VP percentages and direct the state treasurer to keep 17% for the Virginia budget and send 83% on to the SBC undesignated.
Now note how the 17/83 plan balances things out. If a more liberal church sends in $1,000 under the Virginia Plan and a loyal Southern Baptist church also sends in $1,000, half of the total $2,000 remains under the control of Virginia ($170 from the conservative church and $830 from the loyal church plus $170 from the liberal church). Thus the ideal voted and approved at the 1983 Virginia state convention is met.
After your church votes, a simple one or two sentence letter to the state treasurer (same address as where you send your check) can tell him how to divide the funds in accord with the vote.
With the present budget there is no way a church can avoid making a decision. If you do not have a church vote, your church automatically chooses to allow its money to be part of the Virginia Plan with many of its members not knowing what is happening. In the Baptist tradition of openness, every church should make a conscious decision regarding the use of its giving.