October 2, 2026
In 1922, Georgia Baptists began asking the question, “What will we do next?” They had been conducting two capital fundraising campaigns during the previous six years, the Georgia “Half-Million Dollar Campaign” (1916-1919) and the “75 Million Campaign” (1919-1922). Although the 75 Million Campaign was still in progress, Georgia Baptists were already looking beyond it, concluding it would be detrimental to return to the strictly competitive society-based model of mission support.
Basically, there were three options. The first was returning to the society-based model, where each school and affiliated ministry independently raised support primarily through an annual offering and other special appeals. A second option would be to continue with a cooperative model similar to the two campaigns over the previous six years. A third option would be to develop a hybrid system that would combine elements of both models. In 1922, a GBC task force was appointed to consider and make recommendations to the convention the following year.
While some may diminish the impact of the 75 Million Campaign because it failed to reach its goals and left the conventions deeply in debt, Georgia Baptists looked at other factors, specifically the impact of the campaigns on mission support. It was apparent that giving was far greater under a cooperative model. Giving, even during the post-WWI recession, had more than doubled during the campaigns.
Two studies published in the GBC Minutes of 1924 and 1926 quantify this even more clearly, as they looked at the impact on giving. The first reflects ten years, and the second was a twenty-year study. The 1924 report examined the five years before (1915-1919) the 75 Million Campaign and the five years of the campaign (1920-1924). The income was $1.9 million in the five years preceding the campaign and 5.4 million during the campaign, an increase of 250 percent.
The 1926 report took a longer look, comparing mission giving during the ten years before (1906-1916) the campaigns and the ten years during and after both campaigns (1917-1926). Total mission receipts had increased from $2 million in the first decade to nearly $7 million in the second. State Missions giving had nearly doubled from $564,000 to $983,000. Giving to both Home Missions and Foreign Missions had nearly tripled that of the the previous ten years. Even when inflation was factored, the overall growth was phenomenal. (Based on the U.S. Government inflation calculator $2 million in 1916 was equivalent to $3.25 million in 1926, actual ten-year receipts through 1926 were $7 million.)
In 1923, the GBC task force recommended that beginning in 1925, “our denominational programs be made annually, year by year.” What they were recommending was the continuation of the 75 Million Campaign to be conducted on an annual basis. The recommended division between the GBC and the SBC being 50/50. This was the recommendation that would also come jointly from the GBC and the SBC Executive Committees.
The problem of debt should be treated as a separate issue from income when evaluating the impact of the 75 Million Campaign. The debt was created after the overwhelming response during the first year of the campaign. What they could not foresee was the unexpected recession that resulted in a drop in giving from 1921 to 1924. Although had the debts not been present, it is possible that the SBC would have returned to a society-based system. The Northern Baptist Convention chose to do so after their “100 Million Campaign” fell short, leaving them with debt. While the 75 Million goal was not met, giving far exceeded anything experienced under the old societal approach.
Those who had worked with the society-based system had no desire to return to the old model as the primary method of mission support. A united cooperative approach was seen as the better way to support missions. This was expressed in the 1925 report to the SBC by the Committee on Cooperation when they reflected the potential impact of returning to the old system, “leave each institution and activity to go afield to gain its own support by appeal to individuals and to churches, which would in the end bring the demoralization and disaster.” (1925 SBC Minutes p. 28)
The society-based system of annual offerings was not totally abandoned. What emerged was a hybrid system of cooperative giving and societal giving. The annual offerings for International Missions (Lottie Moon), Home Missions (Annie Armstrong), and other offerings for State Missions and other affiliated ministries were and are still promoted today. Hiowever, the primary missions giving lifeline for most ministries was shifting to the Cooperative Program.
Georgia Baptists had already been operating under this type of dual program since 1895 when it adopted “The Regulation Schedule” of cooperative giving. Although the Schedule was a secondary source of income for most ministries, the Cooperative Program replaced it and became the primary support for many of those ministries.
A new era of Baptist missions had arrived. It produced a more efficient and centralized GBC and SBC. The denomination that emerged in 1925 was very different than the one that had existed before the cooperative efforts. This new plan was named the Kingdom Program in 1925 and renamed the Co-operative Program in 1926. The Cooperative Program became the lifeblood of Baptist mission support, helping them survive the Great Depression and fueling the expansion of Baptist missions and education after WWII and beyond.
Georgia Baptists were instrumental in developing, refining, and recommending to the SBC this new system of mission support. The following timeline highlights some of the steps Georgia Baptists took that contributed to the development of the CP.
Share with others
