In CP debate, ‘balance is the key,’ Page says

Jul 25, 2006
JAMES A SMITH SR.
Executive Editor

TAYLORS, S.C. (FBW)—The Southern Baptist Convention presidential election this year generated considerable discussion about the relative importance of the Cooperative Program — Southern Baptists’ unified missions funding and delivery system — and probably resulted in the surprise victory of Frank Page.

THE PAGE PRESIDENCY

Click here for related coverage

The pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., which gave in 2005 more than 12 percent of its undesignated receipts through the Cooperative Program, Page was elected over two other candidates from churches with smaller percentages of CP support, and in the midst of a special report from the SBC Executive Committee on the Cooperative Program which noted a steady decline in the percentage of support by churches for the CP and recommendations for how to reverse the decline.

But it may be surprising for some to learn that Page’s own church has seen a drop in its level of support of the Cooperative Program as a percentage of the church’s undesignated receipts since he became pastor in 2001 — from 15.62 percent to 12.44 percent last year.

First Baptist Church Taylors, S.C., member, Angel Perzhuerta (left), discusses an issue with pastor Frank Page following the July 12 Wednesday evening Bible study at the church. Photo by James A. Smith Sr.

In an exclusive, three-hour interview July 12 with Florida Baptist Witness, Page spoke frankly about the Cooperative Program debate, explaining the rationale for the drop in percentage support for CP at his church and affirming the importance of CP for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention.

When Page became pastor of First Baptist Taylors, although the church had robust support for the Cooperative Program in its budget — as it had for many years, “we had no external national or international mission work” being done by the church itself. Since 2001, “We have indeed begun a huge amount of mission work on our own. … Balance is the key.”

Page said it’s possible for a church to demonstrate strong support of Southern Baptist missions through giving to the Cooperative Program while also not neglecting its duty of doing its own “personalized” missions.

“I believe you can do both well. At Taylors First Baptist we have seen an example of strong support of the Cooperative Program at the same time as a tremendously effective, locally initiated mission work on three levels — both local, national and international,” Page said.

“I believe in strong, sacrificial giving to the Cooperative Program as a moral imperative because of the support we should give to our missionaries and entities. I cannot say I’m a Southern Baptist and give a paltry sum to the Cooperative Program,” he said.

Regarding the debate in Greensboro over the Executive Committee’s recommendation on the Cooperative Program which had removed earlier language calling for encouragement of a ten percent of undesignated receipts by churches and the election of officers from such churches, Page said “we should be very hesitant about putting a percentage as a mark of cooperation and for participation. … The question for me was, does your church give sacrificially to the Cooperative Program? Does it give in such a way as to show a missional mindset?”

Frank Page, newly elected SBC president, prepares to do a taped interview with the PBS talk show, The Tavis Smiley Show, July 12 from the newsroom of WYFF-TV in Greenville, S.C. Photo by James A. Smith Sr.

Although he believes it’s “bad theology” to assert that churches can and should tithe, “I do believe ten percent indicates a serious commitment” to missions, Page said.

Page believes there are three factors that have contributed to a decline in support of the Cooperative Program.

“One is the propensity of the churches to be involved in their own mission work to the exclusion of the support of the Cooperative Program,” adding that such is “understandable, to a degree. Churches are supposed to be involved in their own mission work.

“I never cast aspersions on any church doing mission work. I just say, God bless you. However, when one ceases to support or begins to decline in support of the Cooperative Program in order to do local mission work, this is a trend that is very disturbing,” Page said.

The second factor for CP decline is a “failure on the part of the denominationalists to truly show the Cooperative Program as an object of worth, as an object of value,” adding, “we can no longer and will no longer as a convention respond to denominationlists screaming, give more, give more. … We must be shown where the money is going.”

Another reason for dropping CP support, according to Page, is that “in many states there are many people who disagree with the percentages of amounts sent to a state, sent to a national entity… . There’s extreme differences in where the money goes and how much money goes to various places.”

As to his own church, Page said that although there has been a decline in CP giving as a percentage of undesignated gifts, he expects that percentage to go up this year. “The truth is we do not give on a percentage basis. We give an amount that is in our budget,” Page said, adding however, that the percentage a church gives is “important as one looks at it from a statistical standpoint.”

CP “will never go below ten percent” at his church, Page told the Witness.

Recalling the situation when he arrived in 2001, Page said, “We were out of balance — we were giving a huge amount to the Cooperative Program and doing nothing locally. I believe where we have come to is a place of solid balance.”

Email this Article Print this page