(NOTE: Kevin Ezell was elected as President of the North American Mission Board. The BP article did not tell what the vote count was. Congratulations Dr. Ezell!)
I have not been involved in the debate about whether Kevin Ezell is qualified to be the president of NAMB. From everything I have been told, he is a talented leader and perhaps exactly the kind of visionary administrator that NAMB needs. We cannot afford a continuation of instability and dysfunction at the helm of this important mission organization. From what I have read, Ezell may be exactly what that organization needs.
On the other hand, there are some serious questions about his candidacy. He will head an SBC agency but he has a spotty record of support for the Cooperative Program. The GCR emphasized increased CP giving, but the first hire post-GCR is a man who has not demonstrated a strong commitment to SBC cooperation. Can he call us to give more generously to the CP with his church’s record on this issue? He will be overseeing the cooperative agreements with state conventions, but has not shown much support for state conventions either. I would recommend reading William Thornton at SBC Plodder for a series of posts with some logical and reasonable questions. These are legitimate questions and I would love to hear Ezell’s answers to them.
I’ve taken a middle ground on the Ezell nomination. He sounds like a good man and may be perfect for NAMB leadership, but he also has some reasonable questions he needed to answer.
The Wrong Kind of Answer
But, faced with some questions about his giving, he has lashed out at those who would dare to question him in a way that can only be described as arrogant, demeaning and obstructive. Unfortunately, Baptist Press did not cover these comments (as best I can tell) but they can be found in an article at ABP, called “NAMB presidential nominee defends church’s giving record.”
Frankly, what he said to his church, if it is accurately quoted, demonstrates a dangerous arrogance. I hope it is a misquote, or at least is not indicative of the way he will deal with those who ask him questions in the future. He said:
“Because of the visibility of the position, there are people across the United States who want to look for things that perhaps I do not do as well or they think we should do different, and perhaps be critical of myself or of Highview, just to try to get their name in the paper,” he said. “Typically those are bloggers who live with their mother and wear a housecoat during the day. Just ignore them, but I apologize if you are hurt by anything that they might say about me or indirectly about you.”
Wow! Anyone who would dare to question Kevin Ezell is:
- Someone who WANTS TO look for things he does not do well. He is questioning the motives of those who would dare to question him. They harbor ill-will and do not have legitimate questions. It couldn’t be that we have a deep concern for the CP, for the SBC, and for NAMB and its mission that we have some legitimate questions for the man who is going to lead us in this endeavor. No. Those who would dare to question him are simply nit-pickers, the nattering nabobs of negativity in the modern-day SBC.
- They do this “just to try to get their name in the paper.” They are attention-seekers, not people with legitimate concerns.
- And here, of course, is the coup-de-grace. They are “bloggers who live with their mother and wear a housecoat during the day.” Frankly, I’m sick of bloggers being insulted in this way. Should we expect that when he becomes NAMB president, he will level insults at anyone who questions him? Will he attack those who ask him questions? I don’t know William Thorton, but I do not think he lives with his mother or wears a housecoat. Peter Lumpkins has infuriated me a few times, but I don’t think he deserves this kind of derisive dismissal of his concerns.
- Of course, the fact that Kevin Ezell ignores is that the strongest voices against him have not been nerdy bloggers like us, but state convention presidents – the very people he will have to work with when he gets the job. He chooses to belittle us rather than deal with the questions in a serious way.
- Then, his final response was this. “Ignore them.” If we have genuine questions, can we expect Kevin Ezell to simply ignore us? Is he above responding to serious questions by serious people?
Please understand, I have been in general a SUPPORTER of Kevin Ezell. I think he might be exactly the kind of man we need. But this kind of response to genuine questions bothers me a lot. These are some legitimate and real questions that he should answer about how he can lead an SBC entity after his denominational support has been somewhat tepid. He should respond to the questions, not attack those who ask them!
If this is the kind of arrogance and personal attack we can expect from the NAMB president, we may be in trouble. I have no real hope that Kevin Ezell will read this, but he needs to understand something. When you are the senior pastor of a megachurch, you may have unbridled authority that puts you beyond being questioned, but that is not so in an SBC entity. If elected, you will be a servant, not a master, Pastor Ezell. We will have the right to ask you questions and to expect that you will answer them.
And we will expect that when we do ask questions, you will not, in fact, insult and belittle us.
Chris Roberts (63)
Dave Miller (61)
Bob Hadley (48)
Debbie Kaufman (45)
dr. james willingham (44)
Les (30)
cb scott (29)
Rick Patrick (27)
Bill Mac (26)
Christiane (26)
I have found that Dr. Ezell is a very admirable candidate with great leadership skills.
The CP numbers are concerning but they don’t paint the whole picture of Highviews missional giving under his leadership. They are very involved locally and globally.
This comes down to an issue of CP giving or Great Commission giving. Clear GC giving, not so much CP giving.
Sounds like the convention all over again….. No one, except the search committee knows all the candidates, who may have not accepted the nomination etc… we simply need to trust the process and “pray our Lord’s will is done. Nothing more, nothing less or nothing else.” Bobby Richardson
I will be monitoring comments on this and other comment streams. I don’t care if you agree with me or disagree. Have at it. But I do care if you stick to the topic or at least stay within the natural flow of comments.
This is not about the CR, or Calvinism, or the Mosque. Lets discuss the leadership of NAMB and whether Ezell’s comments were appropriate.
If anyone has any pictures of bloggers in housecoats, I will post them!
Sorry Dave, but this is the Ezell I am more familiar with in my neck of the woods. I hope that is not too direct.
Bloggers wear housecoats? How very civilized of them. I thought housecoats went out of style with Cary Grant and Doris Day.
I would think CB is wearing a tattered Bama shirt.
)
I don’t blog about SBC issues because I was told if I did that i would have to leave my wife, move into my mothers ALF facility and wear my wife’s old housecoat. So I decided to just write about what is important – our local church.
No, they are not appropriate, but, if correct show a dangerous arrogance.
He and his church have every right to decide how they will spend their money. But he might be surprised at the reaction of pastors and churches who might just begin to designate money to stay in Florida or whatever state they are in. If all these churches decide to follow the Presidential example, he might have to take a pay cut like most of the rest of us have had to.
I am tired of being told how we should spend money from people whose giving would be considered an insult if they gave the same percentage as a tip to their server in Denny’s or where the well to do mega-pastors go to eat.
If this sounds angry, that’s because it is.
Thornton as Southern Baptists go these days speaks his mind pretty forthrightly. I disagree with him on many major issues including Inerrancy, but we often find common ground on matters from the Canebrake lynching near his neck of the woods in the 40′s; to Tom Watson and Newt Gingrich.
I hope this is the first of many spotlights he gets here at The Voices.
It will bring some clarity along with the occasional posts of Louis and others, to a Great Fog.
par for the course. i can see no other reason to explain this man’s nomination than to say:
Good Ole Boy Network 2.0.
I would have to agree with you Darby. Kevin is most def a good ole boy. As far as his comments, yeah he said them and is probably still laughing at them. As on who has sat in the pews of Highview I can tell you that this type of backhanded slightly rude humor was a regular feature of his preaching. I found it hard to take him serious.
Good ole boys. . . and I couldn’t crack the network, so I never graduated with my Mdiv from southern, just my BS from Boyce.
Ezell’s comments woud put me at ease with him in a discussion and actually caused me to chuckle when I considered he might just get deleted from this Blog for speaking in the vernacular. I think it’s time we don’t think too much of ourselves, become less thin skined and formulate harder questions that get to the issues -that goes especially for those in housecoats and dirty slippers. Now is not the time for wimps.
At best, this is a hyper-sensitive attitude about Highview’s CP giving in light of the GCTF report.
At worst, this is arrogance that will eventually inhibit the goals of the NAMB that are planned.
Not a good start either way.
There’s an old dictum in regard to lawyers in a courtroom battle: “if your position is weak in regard to evidence, just shout it louder and pound the table.”
Unfortunately, the remarks by Ezell do not surprise me. I’ve already sent him a letter asking him to address these issues. I would not be surprised to receive a reply (if I do receive one) that is at best evasive, and at worst, belicose.
Already he has confirmed my suspicions that he was hired for “who” he knows, not “what” he brings to the table.
I’m guessing if you look at the record of the “growth” of Highview you will discover it was not baptismal growth. I could be wrong, but from what I know of the situation, I suspect I could be right. Someone who is good at getting such info can set the record straight.
I suspect we will hear a response from Ezell about his own comments. No one means to come across like he did and I think he will change his tone when answering future questions.
To be clear- i am not taking a side or even giving an opinion about his comments- I am merely saying that I think an apology or at minimum a change of tone is coming.
I hope so. I’ve been pretty encouraged about his candidacy, in spite of his spotty CP record. He seems like the kind of guy we need. But the attitude displayed in these comments is scary. I hope you are right, Matt.
I’m in my Titans sleep pants. Does that count?
As a sign of good sports taste, yes.
Not a mental picture I really want.
Better than my Packers thong…
I’m considering banning you FOREVER for that mental picture. AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!
I’m also doing the Truffle Shuffle from The Goonies…
BANNED!!!!
Matt, I’d like to hope a change in tone is coming. However, until the questions are coming from someone respectable, rather than bloggers in housecoats or State Executive Directors (which it will be interesting to see how they’re labeled, I don’t think they live with their mothers), I doubt you’ll see it.
Considering NAMB will vote tomorrow, why should there be a change in tone? If he’s elected, then there’s no reason to change tones, since he’ll be in the role and vindicated. If he’s defeated, it will be because of basement-dwellers who should be ignored.
Either way, I don’t expect an apology at all, and the only change in tone will be away from defensiveness since it won’t be necessary. Not sure what it will be, though.
Oops, gotta go. Mom wants me to get off the computer and clean out the basement. (sarcasm. I don’t live with Mom. I’ve been married for 12 years, live in a parsonage with my wife and kids. Mom has no basement, and I have no housecoat. I do have a raincoat and some off-the-rack suitcoats, though.)
Doug
Ezell cannot afford to not have an opinion or not to take sides. I don’t think his nomination is being reviewed over what or how he spoke from the pulpit.
Somehow I think the Bloggers in Housecoats thing might catch on.
What’s a ‘house-coat’?
I have found myself discouraged by the blogs about the SBC in recent months. My first question to all the bloggers is “Have you approached the person in your crosshairs and talked to them? Have you asked them in person? Are you just shooting from the hip without speaking with them and getting to know their heart?”
Just curious that’s all
From a younger (28) SBC student pastor who is really struggling to understand all of this in light of the Great Commission and the mandate to make disciples of all nations – And who grew up a mile from Highview and has come to greatly admire their love for the Lord and passion for ministry/missions
Scott, that’s a fair question. I would respond 2 ways.
1) Ezell showed great disdain for bloggers. Do you think he’s going to respond to me if I ask him a question? I have tried that and get no response.
2) The comments were already reported publicly. I simply commented on publicly reported comments.
I emailed Kevin Ezell. We’ll see if he responds.
Dave,
Thank you for doing that. I must admit I was very discouraged, but I am grateful for your doing that. I don’t think it’s a disdain for bloggers, I think it’s a disdain towards malcontents who use their blogs to attack from a distance instead of doing the hard part of searching out the truth and talking face to face about an area of disagreement.
So long as at the end of the day we are committed to partnering for the sake of seeing the Gospel proclaimed to the world, I can handle secondary/tertiary disagreements! Soli Deo Gloria
Bloggers can’t always approach the person in question. That’s why the good bloggers use primary sources for their information: sermons, audio clips, articles, legal documents, yearbooks, photos…
You know, all the stuff that got summarily dismissed in other issues where the bloggers are eventually proven correct.
“My first question to all the bloggers is “Have you approached the person in your crosshairs and talked to them? Have you asked them in person? Are you just shooting from the hip without speaking with them and getting to know their heart?”
You mean to ask him if the abp article misquoted him?
Honestly, I think yes before you publish something about someone you should approach them to fairly understand who they are, what they said, what they meant, and why you want to comment on it. I think um, what’s his name, oh yeah… Jesus… gave a great model for dealing with things in Matthew 18 – I do not see publishing a blog (or the spirit of it since blogs didn’t exist until after the Fall – sorry, little tongue in cheek there
) in that.
I think blogs are abused when they become a platform to criticize someone without speaking to them and addressing the issue with the brother in question.
I wish Baptist Press would cover things like this. They lose credibility when they do not.
They lost credibility years ago. I don’t even waste mytime with the SBC’s version of Baghdad Bob.
I’m sorry, but when you are a pastor of a church, that church’s actions or inactions begin and end at your desk.
If you want churches to contribute 10% of their receiptes to the CP, then you dang well be doing it yourself.
I’m tired of this “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality that is so pervasive within the Southern Baptist Convention.
He needs to man up and know that to lead, you also have to do it yourself first.
As for the blogging part, well, when the bloggers are right, you just attack the blogger rather than address the points. That means the bloggers are on to something here…
The dude’s got questions to answer and true to SBC form, he attacking the questioner rather than answering the questions…
Now truthfully though, this is a real surprise–his attitude, I mean. Who would have ever thought that a mega-church pastor who makes 6 figures, never has to worry about money, is a member (likely) of a country club, would ever view normal, regular people (or pastor of churches smaller than his) as little more than the “unwashed masses”? Come on, mega-church pastors are simply sopping with humility. They’re the first ones to wrap the towel around their waist and do the dirty work.
Sacasm…yet another free service I offer.
Here I sit in my OWN basement, not my mother’s. (She’s in heaven.) I am clothed in FLEECE WEAR, since house coats are terribly out of fashion. But I will grant that Dr. Ezell is close enough in his characterization.
His disdain for me and other Southern Baptists with, ironically, a “high view” of the Cooperative Program has been exposed. His comments are so arrogant and self-destructive that poorly clothed, basement dwelling critics like me now have even more reason to question him.
At first, my concerns were all about NAMB support. My church gives 10% through CP while Dr. Ezell’s mini-denomination gives 2%. My church gave more through Annie Armstrong though we are one-eighth the size of the High View multi-church organization. But now, my concerns are indeed with his character–bristling at well meaning brothers who were not questioning him per se but were questioning the prerequisites of the Search Committee process. He could have repented and pledged to set a better example of cooperation. Instead, he chose to attack. At this point, how is he possibly qualified to lead? Will he withdraw his nomination before the end of the day?
As GCR proponents celebrate the passage of the Task Force Report, they need to realize that the convention spoke just as loudly — perhaps even louder — in support of the Cooperative Program by means of the amended wording worked out on the platform under the lights. (How I wish we had counted those ballots.)
If the CP really does mean something to the GCR proponents, then it is time for them to step up and show that with actions and not merely words.
Before he was nominated I had really no knowledge of Ezell. From all appearances he seems like a great guy who has led his church to be committed to missions giving. The NAMB trustees had to know what his churches cp giving was and obviously do not care. It is a continuation of the GCR attitude. I have accepted the fact that the powers that be behind the GCR were/are doing what they think is best for the Kingdom.
My beef now is I want them to come clean and just say what they are talking about with each other. How can you say give give give to the CP and not fully support it yourself? It shows a great distrust for state conventions and our mission agencies and now a man is nominated who appears to be like minded. I truly have nothing against Ezell and wish him the very best if he is confirmed and hope he brings much glory to the kingdom through his leadership at NAMB.
What I found very interesting about the GCR proposal was if all these changes were to be made then why was the alternative giving section left in. The motion that changed it made many happy but if all these changes/fixes to our convention were going to be made then we should even get more excited about our CP giving and trust the conventions and agencies with our dollars.
I thought bloggers just sat around in their undies.
Wow, Dave, wow!
Up to this point I had been rather in favor of Dr. Ezell’s nomination. Willing to look beyond his CP/NAMB/State Convention support and have him come in to mobilize NAMB to a more effective church planting/strategizing entity so as to remove the Acts 29 advocacy/merger/conspiracy theories off the radar…
But, wow! Now, I’m absolutely no fan of ABP. I’d like to hear other corroborative evidence to this statement. Anyone have audio of the worship service? If this statement is in anyway accurate–as to what was said, not the depiction of you blogger types
–then I am now genuinely concerned as well. If this is what he is willing to say about bloggers, then what next of state convention leaders, or of small church pastors?
Yikes.
Sola Gratia.
Sorry, Scott. You do not get to get away with the “you bloggers” thing. You are one of us. Now, don your housecoat and get on the computer in your mother’s basement!
Didn’t Brad Paisley write a song about some guy in his mom’s basement? “When you’re a blog celebrity, it’s adios reality. You write what you want to, CBF’ers think you’re cool, bashing Patterson”
It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it.
I received an email from Kevin Ezell this morning. He claimed his comments had been taken out of context (not exactly sure how insults such as he spoke could be done IN context, but…) and he said that he was only trying to comfort his people since untrue things had been said about them. He admitted that he needed to be more careful in the future about how he worded things.
“….he said that he was only trying to comfort his people since untrue things had been said about them.”
Fellows, I think we should give some grace here based upon the statement above.
Some of you have no doubt left good ministries of which a great part of your life and the lives of other people were invested. I believe that the departure from a good ministry is far more stressful than the departure from a bad one.
When any of us are leaving a good ministry we begin to realize there are people we have had continual Christian fellowship with for a long time that we will, now, possibly never see again this side of heaven. It is very akin to a death in the family experience as far as stress value.
Therefore, I plead for grace to be extended to Kevin Ezell.
And just think for a moment. What if the guy could just walk out of his former ministry saying, “so long folks, its been a real blast.” What would you think of him then? You would think he was a cold hearted mercenary who was now on his way to his next opportunity without much thought of what he had left behind.
The passion of compassion will sometimes overpower our best thinking and our best choice of words. Let’s give Ole Kevin Ezell a break and continue to pray he is God’s man to lead NAMB out of the quagmire that it is in at the present.
Folks, Kevin Ezell is going to need all the prayer we can offer on his behalf. The job before him is “Legion.”
Sure, CB, I’m willing to give him grace.
On the other hand, I am not willing to give him a pass. He needs to answer questions and he needs to demonstrate respect for his constituency, the rank and file people of the SBC.
His statement did not seem like a ministry to his people as it was an insult to his critics. I haven’t even been one of his critics, so I feel no personal animus.
But if the head of NAMB is going to place himself above criticism and attack anyone who dares to question him, we are in trouble.
Dave,
I did not say we should give Ezell a “pass.” I said I think we should give him some grace based on his statement.
“Passes” are given out to kids to go to the circus free of charge. The giving of grace is an exclusive virtue only within the Christian community.
Dave, it seems to me that you sent him an email calling for accountability. That was a good thing. It gives the opportunity for grace to be brought into the situation.
Ezell responded that “….he needed to be more careful in the future about how he worded things.” That is taking responsibility for his words and actions. It is, in a sense, a confession of guilt.
My point is, based upon such a confession, we should extend Christian grace to our brother. At the same time, we must hold him and all other entity heads to accountability. After all, they work for us. And sometimes it might be necessary to remind them of such.
I’m in agreement here, CB.
You said, “At the same time, we must hold him and all other entity heads to accountability. After all, they work for us. And sometimes it might be necessary to remind them of such.”
I think you are right. Let’s show some grace AND hold him accountable. I think there has been some cynicism about his on this thread – which I probably opened the door for but do not share.
CB
The job is not before him until he is elected, perhaps later today. At this point, he is merely the nominee. The best and most gracious time to remove people from an office for which they are disqualified is BEFORE they actually begin serving.
Do you really think we should show grace to him while he talks about us living with our mothers and is preparing possibly to lead an organization in which he is only minimally invested financially?
I have seen nothing that indicates that he will have any trouble getting the job. Every trustee has spoken highly in his favor.
And, from what I know, I would probably vote for him if I were a trustee. My comments are not against him or the job he will do. I thought his comments were arrogant and evidenced a lack of understanding of the right of Baptists to ask tough questions of their leaders.
I know he is not yet elected, but would you like to make a large wager as to whether he “will” get the big chair or not. I was at NAMB the day Geoff was “elected.” I was on the board of trustees when Jimmy Draper was “elected.” I worked at SEBTS when Danny Akin was “elected.”
I can assure you Kevin Ezell has already been “elected.” Today is nothing more than the “public confirmation.”
And yes, I think we should show him grace no matter those statements. He has already confessed he made an error in judgement.
Thanks for the update, Dave. His statements may very well have been taken out of context, yet he stated he should be more careful with his words. I’m not saying we should not give Ezell grace here, but combating “untrue things” with untrue rhetoric is graceful how?
Throw another ad-hom on the fire, Myrtle; the bloggers are getting cold again.
This is one example of what might be seen as a double-standard that caused many to blog in the first place. Here in GA we had a resolution on blogging a couple years ago. As if blogging is a separate sub-species of human communication of which all other media forms are immune. I suppose only certain entity heads and important non-bloggers are allowed to use other forms of media to say what they want, how they want. The thing is that some bloggers who may veer off the path into idiocy were not necessarily driven that way in a vacuum. /rant off
Note: This rantvertisement was meant to be general and not specific to brother Ezell.
Dave,
I resemble that remark…wait…’but what if mom won’t let me drive’ (best line from those Progressive Insurance commercials…maybe he is an SBC blogger, too?
).
CB,
I hear you. Grace indeed is warranted! I just wish he would not have checked his brain at the door during that comment.
SG!
I love that. “What if mom won’t let me drive.” Brilliant.
I guess I’m like CB, although for a different reason. My reason for giving him grace is that it is out of our hands anyway. The Trustees are going to vote for him overwhelmingly, probably unanimously. Why? Because he is all but God’s annointed, and he is (according to the search committee), God’s man for the job. Funny: so were the last two NAMB presidents, and we all know how they ended their tenures.
Sorry if I seem jaded. It’s because I am. We see entity head after entity head who give lip service to the CP and the thousands of smaller membership churches, but have a differnet agenda altogether. Sometimes that turns out to be creating a CEO atmosphere within their organization–with the best and Godliest of intentions, but nevertheless becomes a very top-down vision, a la the mega-church model. And sometimes it turns out to be the creation of their own little empire. I will pray that Rev. Ezell is a happy exception to that rule, and one who will recognize on one hand that NAMB is a ministry created to serve God through the churches, and two that it is a dysfunctional organization that will take more than visionary or mega-church mentality leadership to change. And I will also pray that his attitude towards state conventions will change.
John
John,
I’m curious as to why you think Ezell will be elected unanimously when Frank Page was not elected unanimously as head of the Executive Committee. Letters from State Convention Presidents should not be quickly dismissed.
Oh, I forgot to say: my housecoat is getting a bit ragged, but fortunantly, with the hot weather, I have been comfortable sitting in my skivies. Don’t know what I’ll do this winter though. Especially since my mom’s house is 800 miles away and has been long since sold, since she died in 1982.
John
“….he said that he was only trying to comfort his people since untrue things had been said about them.”
Anyone, who has ever had to stand before his congregation and explain why people were saying negative things about them because of their pastor knew this comment was not intended his congregation that everything is ok, and was not for publication. Who among us has not said things from or pulpit that we would say a little more graciously if we know they were going to be published? Should he have said them? No… Should we be making more out of them than was intended? Again, No.
“He admitted that he needed to be more careful in the future about how he worded things.”
Yes he does… Enough said.
Will this statement be enough for the “C.P. Purest” in the SBC? Sadly, probably not.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford,
Well said.
What CB said…
Greg,
I think you know that you and I agree on many issue. Maybe even most. I’m not a C.P. Purest, for example. I understand what you are saying here although I don’t totally agree. It almost reads as if you are saying that pastors should be given a little less accountability in the pulpit.
Correction… “knew this comment was only intended to reassure his congregation…”
The problem is that the comments – the harshest were by State execs – were not aimed at his congregation they were aimed at his leadership.
He’s going to be elected. He’s going to be the president. I am going to pray for him. But I can’t wait until he asks me to give sacrificially to the North American offering.
Tom,
“I can’t wait until he asks me to give sacrificially to the North American offering.”
Great Attitude Tom…
What are you so mad about Tom???
Perhaps Kevin will ask you to earnestly pray and give sacrificially to where the greatest needs are? If that is through the C.P. fine… if not, then that’s between you, your congregation, and God.
I have the same attitude that Pastor Ezell has. Each year we are asked to give sacrificially to the AAEO. His church responded the way he led them to respond. I am thinking of following his example. But I am not really going to do that because that money goes to places and people that are not going to be reached by week long mission trips, but by all year round missionaries doing the hard, difficult work of plowing new spiritual ground.
I am bothered by the fact that he is now heading an organization that depends on the giving of churches who are giving 10% to the CP.
I am bothered by the fact that he gave as little as he did to the Easter offering. He will now be paid faithful people and churches that have been doing it for years.
I am also bothered by the June convention that gave great lip service to the CP by changing the words, but honors those whose giving percentage is less than a decent tip at Starbucks much less a nice restaurant.
But like you said, this is a decision that our church as led by God has reached. Your church reaches different decisions. I am thankful for that. But I honestly believe that this sort of mind set is the mind set not of cooperating southern baptists but the independent fundamentalist baptists.
Very well spoken Tom… and I do hear what you are saying, and I do not disagree with where your heart is in this discussion at all.
Change is uncomfortable for all of us. There are so many unknowns right now, and so very much is at stake, that it has many of us deeply concerned for our future. One good bit of news is that I read in the Florida Baptist Witness this week that at least one of our state conventions has already adopted a 50/50 allocation of C.P. funds for next year… So my prayer is that in this time of “Realignment of Convention Priorities” we will see a “Rebirth” of enthusiasm and support the C.P. and the important work that is funded through the C.P.
This “Rebirth” of enthusiasm and support for the C.P. will not happen because we beat our chest and tell everyone to just give more money… it will happen only if we are willing to address the fundamental issues that are the root cause of the decline of support over the years. Hopefully, prayerfully, we are beginning to see this take shape throughout the Southern Baptist Convention, and what emerges will be a stronger commitment to all of our cooperative efforts as Southern Baptist.
Grace Always,
Greg,
In June I voted on the GCTF Report. Several times in the document, and then once more with a dramatic flourish on the floor of the convention, people insisted that the CP was the first and foremost, the primary channel for missions support in the SBC. How then, if they were being honest and truthful, could the “greatest needs” of the SBC in missions support be elsewhere in the eyes of the new NAMB President, whoever ???? might be?
Rick,
Two things received overwhelming support from the convention in Orlando: (1) The GCR Task Force Recommendations (2) The Cooperative Program.
The first one was a clear mandate for a “Realignment of Convention Priorities”… the second one said “Don’t throw the Cooperative Program under the bus in doing so!”
I think everyone in leadership within the convention heard that message loud and clear, and I believe that given the chance to do so, they will realign their ministry priorities accordingly. Howbeit, this realignment of ministry priorities of individual churches to be more supportive of the C.P. will only come as a result of growing confidence in how the C.P. funds are allocated.
So I feel we should not be so focused on the C.P. giving of the past… but on what we can do to improve the effectiveness of our ministries that are supported through the C.P. thereby improving confidence in giving through the C.P. That is why I feel Kevin is a good choice for the job at NAMB.
Mark,
I am not defending what Kevin said… he should not have said it.
But what I am saying is that we were not there, in his congregation, during this comment and we all know that words in print can sound much harsher than we intended for them to sound. For instance does anyone here know if this was a light hearted comment, and was Kevin smiling when he made this comment, or was his face red and did he pound his pulpit when he made this comment?
All I am saying is that context matters… and like CB I think we need to show Kevin a little grace here. He has been called to account for this reckless comment, and he is now I am sure aware that his every word will be examined for clues to his attitude toward others in the SBC and what sort of leadership he brings to NAMB. I am sure he will be more careful in the future…
Mark, you are absolutely correct… and no, pastors should not be less accountable for what they say in the pulpit… but actually much more accountable. If I communicated that, I stand corrected… as does Kevin.
Grace Always,
Thanks, Greg. I was just making sure I understood properly. I didn’t mean to jump to a wrong conclusion if I came across that way.
My church gives 20% to the CP, and we gave $23,000 to Annie. Maybe we should follow the leadership of our new President? what he did at his church?
And, what about all that talk about the GCR giving not replacing the CP, and the CP being emphasized more? Then, we go out and place a man in this position, who exhibits all the concerns that a lot of us had about this GCR and Great Commission Giving. Concerning.
But, I’m all for praying for Kevin Ezell, now that he’s the Pres. of NAMB. I will try to support his work, as he leads us. But, statements like he made, and the giving record of his church, are troubling…to say the least.
David
David,
Somehow I know this was where this conversation would end up…
So, any Southern Baptist Pastor who, in the past, honestly looked at the way the CP was being allocated in their state and said I cannot in good conscious fully support this program, as it is now operating, is not qualified to serve in leadership within the SBC?
I sometimes think the S in SBC stands for status quo.
Greg,
If all the churches follow the lead of our new Pres. then there’d be massive layoffs at NAMB, and our new Pres. would have to take a pay cut.
BTW, this is now. This aint somewhere in the past, or what someone did 20 years ago. This is now. And, the record of giving to the CP and to Annie at Highview doesnt look good at all.
Now, I dont know Kevin Ezell. He may be a fine fella, and he’ll probably do a lot better job at NAMB than what I could do. And, I’m gonna pray for him, and for NAMB. I honestly hope that he does a great job.
BUT, the statement made, and the record of giving in his church, is concerning to me.
Also, I wonder if he wants all of us to follow his lead…what they did at Highview in their giving to the CP and to Annie?
David,
This is now??? Well of course it is… And the whole GCR movement is about reforming the things in the SBC (C.P. allocations included) that are causing churches like Highview, and many others, to turn to a less cumbersome and more direct means of doing missions than our traditional method of just pouring more and more money into the same old system.
I know this is anathema for the “CP Purest” out there, but change is coming… and part of that change is that no longer will the percent of giving to the CP be the end all litmus test for one being a faithful Southern Baptist.
He’s not prez yet is he?
Greg,
Whew, this is exhausting…trying to answer what you write. You said, “So, any Southern Baptist Pastor who, in the past, honestly looked at the way the CP was being allocated in their state and said I cannot in good conscious fully support this program, as it is now operating, is not qualified to serve in leadership within the SBC?” YOU are the one, who brought up giving to CP in the PAST!!! I was just answering you, when I said, “BTW, this is now. This aint somewhere in the past, or what someone did 20 years ago. This is now. And, the record of giving to the CP and to Annie at Highview doesnt look good at all.”
So, Greg, if your attitude about giving to the CP prevails, then a lot of NAMB missionaries and NAMB employees better get ready to find some other way to pay their electric bills. And, Kevin Ezell better be ready to take a big cut in his salary. Because, if we all go along with you, and apparently Kevin Ezell, then NAMB is gonna lose a lot of financial support.
Maybe I should try to lead my church to quit giving so much to Annie? and start designating our money? maybe we should stop giving such a high percentage to the CP? if that’s the way of the future…maybe we should start now?
David
PS. I’m gonna lead my church to keep giving, BTW. THat was just a hypothetical for Greg. But, if all of us lowered our giving to the same percentage as Highview……
David,
Whew,???
Take a deep breath David… Now don’t you feel better?
Have a great day in the Lord
Grace Always,
Bill Mac, the vote is today – not sure when.
David, there has probably never been an entity head whose church gave 20% to CP. Ever.
I think you are overreacting here.
1) The figure I heard was 2.2% to CP. Is that enough? Probably not, but its more than a lot of our convention leaders/megachurches. They have been very active and involved in SBC affairs.
Since the SBC has NEVER defined what it means to the an SBC church or set a minimum level of giving, Highview and Kevin Ezell are commendably cooperative with the SBC.
The question, as I have heard it, is this: Is the CP/Annie giving of Highview church sufficient to give Kevin Ezell credibility in addressing the convention and calling for sacrificial giving.
I think it is a valid question that should be answered. I do not think we should cynically run down Kevin Ezell. We should just ask for answers from him.
2) If you want to give less because the entity head does, that is your church’s right. It would be petty, but it would be your right. If you give less because of what someone else does, that would speak more to your motives than to theirs, wouldn’t it?
3) SBC churches are autonomous and as such can give as they are convicted. We all give different amounts. Your church gives more than my church does by percentage. My church gives more than Highview does by percentage. But that doesn’t give me more credibility than Kevin Ezell or you more credibility than me.
Dave,
I have absolutely no idea why you said that I was overreacting. I never said that the head of an SBC Entity had to give 20%.
1) I’m not cynically running down Ezell. Good grief…where did you get that? I’m agreeing with your OP, for goodness sake. Did I not say that I would pray for him, and I will continue to give and support NAMB, and I hope that Ezell does a great job? Dave, what are you talking about? Am I the David that you are addressing in your comment?
2) Again, I never said that I was going to lead my church to give less. I was simply saying what if we did all follow the lead of the new NAMB Pres.? What if my church decided to do what they do at Highview, concerning CP and Annie giving? What if we agree with Greg that giving to the CP is a thing of the past? that giving to designated entities, and church plants, etc was the future? that giving blindly to Annie is just a past thing? IF that was the case, THEN NAMB employees and missionaries would be laid off. And, Ezell might find his salary being cut.
3)What are you talking about? Why would you even say this to me? I’m just bewildered trying to figure out why you’d even say this to me?
We’re talking about a man being elected to be the Pres. of NAMB; or, at least, I thought we were. We’re talking about what his church does in giving to SB missions, and the fact that he’s being placed into a leadership position of an SBC entity that his church didnt support very well…for their size and financial standing, while he was the Pastor. Right? And, of course, Highview and your church and my church can give whatever they choose to give. And, everyone’s church is just as important as the other one…no matter what they give, or are able to give. No question about that. BUT, we’re talking about the Pastor of a very large church, being elected to lead an SBC entity…a mission organization…and his church didnt give a very large percentage to support that work! Aint that what the discussion was?
Now, I need to rewrap my housecoat around my body, and tie it up tight, and go upstairs and see if my Momma made another pot of coffee like I hollered up the stairs and asked her to do.
David,
“What if we agree with Greg that giving to the CP is a thing of the past?”
David… I did not say that! You may have interpreted that as what I meant… but you would be wrong on that as well.
You may be shocked when I say this David, but I just lead my Church to increase our C.P. giving… I am not against C.P. giving… I am against the “litmus test” for Leadership!
With some of you “C.P. Purest” it’s as if the more someone gives the more they are qualified for leadership in the SBC… Are leadership positions in the SBC up for sale? Can someone purchase a position in SBC leadership with their C.P. giving?
Greg,
It’s about the extremely low percentage given to the CP, and an even lower percentage given to Annie. And now, he’s gonna lead what he would never support that well? Now, all of a sudden, it’s worthy of more support? It’s not about SBC entities going to the highest bidder. lol. Some people are just finding it hard to accept that a fella, who did not lead his church to support the CP and Annie, is now gonna lead NAMB…which depends on those 2 for the finances it needs to work.
Greg, I sincerely hope he does a great work at NAMB. I will be praying for him. I will be praying that our best days are ahead for the SBC with him at the head of NAMB.
It still makes you scratch your head a bit.
Dave,
I don’t see how it would be petty for average Southern Baptist Churches to participate in a Follow the Leader Initiative by which their benchmark for setting CP giving would be established by, say, the average CP giving by the Presidents of the SBC, IMB and NAMB, for example. How else can we hold them accountable? Why should those giving 1% tell those giving 10% how things are going to work? What else is there to keep Calvinists from taking over the convention while using non-Calvinist dollars to do it?
Has it not occurred to anyone else that as Kevin remakes NAMB into an organization he can in good conscience support that it might no longer be an organization that others can in good conscience support? How was he allowed to cut CP giving without charges of pettiness years ago but if others consider doing it now, it will be deemed petty?
Well. . . I may have to revise my opinion of Bro. Ezell’s nomination. After all, if he can get me to agree with David Worley, volfan007, there is something special about him.
John
To be honest, I think his quote to his church was incredibly accurate. How often to people in any sort of limelight have bloggers who don’t know them insult them? I’m not defending his statement about “living with their moms” but I think, in context, he was saying that people who want to do that need to get a life, and I agree.
Good post, Dave. There hasn’t been much objective support or hesitancy about this in popular Christian media.
Brandon,
You think the quote is accurate but you are not defending it…… ok
If you don’t mind could you point me in a direction of a blog that has insulted him?
I’m not saying there is one……………. Just that I have not seen it.
What I have seen in the blog world so far is questions being raised of Highview’s CP giving and how that relates to the GCRTF report. Many people think that this is one of several standards to be used to decide if the person is qualified. Some people do not.
Did he think that the CP giving would not be brought up? If he is satisfied with Highview’s financial decisions then he needs to own it, and state where he disagrees with those who question him. His reaction is not a good first step as leader of the NAMB.
I think Brandon’s point is that there ARE bloggers who say things negatively just for the publicity, to get their name in the paper or to seek the limelight.
He’s probably right.
But I do not think that William Thornton’s questions have come with that spirit.
Dave,
Brandon is right. There is no doubt about. “….there ARE bloggers who say things negatively just for the publicity, to get their name in the paper or to seek the limelight.”
You know that. I know that. Every Baptist in the United States and “Oklahoma” knows that.
You could have easily left off your last sentence and made a wonderful point.
Instead, it comes off like a cheap hit piece.
Just calling it straight…
It was a hit Bill. You are right. But it did not come cheap. It has been very costly to all who have been at the receiving end of those seeking the “limelight” at any price.
Stephen Fox September 14, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Dumping money into the Cooperative Program is how it’s seen at Highview as one of Ezell’s Members expressed himself this morning in the Comment line at ABPnews story from which Brother Miller quoted liberally for this blog:
Here are the exact words of the Highview Member
” Rather than dump money into the CP, we’ve been specifically assigning that money…”
I would encourage all of yall to read the comments accruing at http://www.abpnews.com on this matter
There are several things that bother me about this whole affair. One, of course, is the thin-skin of the nominee, Hey! He is going to a high profile position where he will be in the spolight often, and he needs to be able to handle criticism without blowing his cool. Two, a fellow who has not supported programs wants something in persuading others to support the programs he might propose for the NAMB. Three, I have a stake in this. My sister and her husband are under appointment by the NAMB, serving in what use to be called a pioneering area. The ending of support for domestic types of missions as the NAMB represents would troublesome, to say the least. And there is more. My sister and brother-in-law have a son who is pastoring a mission and working in student work in the same area. Thus, the NAMB gets another family of missionary servants (my nephew, his wife, and three sons) for nothing financially. Seems like the good ole boy network had better come up with a cooler, committed to domestic missions leader rather than jeopardize the whole program with someone who doesn’t know any better than to flaunt wounded pride before the masses or else provide demonstrable proof of the nominee’s qualities being truly fitting and more than equal to the task.
I just read this comment on another blog. Have yall heard this?
The commenter was talking about members of Highview speaking about this issue; the commenter said, “On another site, one(member of Highview) mentioned it was a good thing that they didn’t just “dump” their missions money into CP, but that the money they gave went around all that,because they gave directly. Another member mentioned that it was a good thing that the Pastor and church wanted to give directly and not fund administrative stuff.”
“Dump” thier missions money into the CP? Is this a good understanding of the CP, at all? Giving directly is better? So, societal giving is now better? Better than cooperatively?
Also, the “administrative stuff” is needed in order to make sure that good, sound missionaries are picked for the work; to make sure that the money gets to the missionaries; to do all sorts of behind the scenes things that make missions possible. Maybe that member was talking about “Administrative stuff” like the salary of the NAMB Pres.? maybe?
David
Could you provide documentation or a link for that comment? I read that quote, but have not remarked on it until I found documentation of the comment. I’m interested.
Abpnews.com
click on the news story near the bottom
The verification of the line is from your own Link, Brother Miller, the 7th comment in response to ABP article
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5694/53/
A fellow who identifies himself as JBoro a member of Highview makes the remark.
Joe Perdue’s comment previous to Jboro is awfully instructive in my opinion as well.
Glad to be of service, not only massaging this conversation as it intersects the insight of my friend William Thornton, but also of assistance in directing the conversation at ABP and elsewhere.
Your welcome.
I’m not a fan of mega-churches, but I can easily see how a church that has the ability to give a large amount of money to missions may bypass the CP, if they feel they can steward the money more effectively. Who is to say that they cannot? In the end, it is what is best for the great commission, not the CP. It may well be that direct giving is better stewardship in some cases.
Now, a person that advocates bypassing the CP may raise eyebrows as president of NAMB. Different issue.
True.
QUOTE 2) If you want to give less because the entity head does, that is your church’s right. It would be petty, but it would be your right. END QUOTE
Would you consider it “petty” to invest in a stock when the Chairman of the Board does not invest? If even the head (or in this case prospective head until the rubber stamp meeting) of an organization does not think it is a good place to “dump” money, then it is not petty to avoid such an organization, it is imperative in my view.
I think there is more than a little work that needs to be done to restore confidence in NAMB, and I for the life of me, cannot see how someone with this man’s record could possibly do that.
I have an eight year history with the NAMB Board (through a very close friend) and there are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed — besides the obvious embroidering of the house coats.
Well, he’s elected now so we can all just shut up about it.
Apparently, 2% is the new 10%…
Bill, where has anyone ever established 10% as a CP norm?
Every pastor that I’ve had the pleasure to serve under or sit under…
My home church now gives 15% off the top…
Lottie Moon – over 125K each year for the past decade
Annie Armstrong – - over 60K each year
we’re a fifth the size of Highview too…
we also directly sponsor well over sixty missionaries all over the world and we’re waiting to hear back from a couple going to Mozambique so we can begin to try and help with their needs…
It ain’t hard folks, you just have to decide what’s important and roll with it.
Most impressive; obviously your home church is committed to missions. What’s the name of the church and in what city is it located?
Sheila
Let’s all give 2% and see what happens. I am going to ask my state convention to redirect all funds to cover the cuts that will be forth coming because the GCR.
Sorry, Jeff, but I think that is unfair. You don’t know that any of these leaders intend to cut anything. The leaders of the CR said just the opposite.
I understand that I opened this door, but I think the cynicism, sarcasm and derogation on this comment stream are no more appropriate than Kevin Ezell’s comments.
I would have some concerns about the “member of Highview” comments that have been quoted.
Here it is in its entirety:
The name of the author is listed as “jboro” and it is dated September 14, 2010
As a member of Dr. Ezell’s church, I find it absurd that this is even an issue.
Pastor Kevin has personally overseen a budget of over $1,000,000 for the past several years. How can we possibly take this as a negative? Rather than dump money into the CP, we’ve been specifically assigning that money, and have built great relationships with several communities, churches, pastors, and seminaries all across the world. Highview has several missions opportunities throughout the year, and a real gospel impact has been made because of the leadership of Dr. Ezell.
The fact that he has been very successful in leading a missions budget at a local church and turned Highview into a hub for missionaries should more than qualify him to lead NAMB. On top of this, Pastor Kevin takes our mission to take care of orphans so seriously that we have an entire ministry devoted to adoption, and Dr. Ezell has 3 adopted orphans himself, and the church has over 70 members who have adopted or are in the process of adoption.
As a result of Highview missions, there have been several THOUSAND people who have heard (and accepted) the gospel. There have been dozens of successful church plants (Look up the Gallery Church of New York City for a great example) and have spread out across the city of Louisville to reach a vast number of people and demographics. Highview has brought the church, and consequently the gospel, to people.
Dr. Ezell is a gospel first pastor, who has a serious heart for missions – one that I have never seen in another pastor. This is evidenced by his leadership in making Highview one of the most Missions oriented churches in the country. To take this as a negative is to downplay the Great Commission for the sake of denominational organizations.
As for Calvinism, Pastor Kevin has never taught the 5 points of Calvinism. He believes that the gospel is to be preached to all people, that God desires all people to be saved, and that we are the messengers t carry out that mission.”
I just fail to see how a missions-oriented pastor who oversees an extremely missions-oriented church could possibly be defamed for not being Baptist enough. I am excited to see what great things the Lord will do through Dr. Ezell, and think this is one of the best moves the SBC has made in recent history.
I would make the following observations here:
1) This person is anonymous – we assume he or she is an actual member of Highview. But we do not KNOW that.
2) This person is a member of a large church and as far as we know does not speak for the church. This is one person’s opinion. To assume that jboro’s opinion represents the mindset of the entire church about CP is contra reality.
I have people in my church who think that giving a missions percentage is not the right way to do things. But that is not the view of the church.
Don’t draw too much about the church’s position from the words of one member.
3) The use of the word “dump” seems to be a focus of comments. I don’t think the writer meant that in the derogatory way that some have taken it.
4) This person seems to think very highly of Kevin Ezell. If he is the man that jboro thinks he is, he will serve us well – even those of us in housecoats in our mother’s homes!!
So at what point do we stop electing these people who clearly have very little regard for the Cooperative Program?
Methinks we’re seeing things that would have been in the sealed records…
Guess we’ll find out in fifteen years…
Again, by what standard do you say that 2.2% giving evidences “little regard” for the CP. That is more than several of our key leaders’ churches.
We do not have a set giving standard. I would ask you again by what standard you judge them to be falling short of appropriate support.
Is 2.2% giving a disqualifying amount?
I say it is because there are many out there who advocate giving such a large percentage (typically 10% as I stated earlier) and it’s now coming to light that they’re giving a pittance as far as percentage though the amount by itself is often larger than entire groups of churches.
The point I’m making is that it is sustainable to constant ask the small churches to give until it hurts and the large churches give a dollar more than that amount to say they give vast amounts of money away. Who misses the dollar more, the widow or the banker?
ugh. typos today…
I fail.
It’s not sustainable…
Dave, I wonder if all the churches (including the ones my husband pastored in KY which gave 14 and 10 and 11%) of their general budget were to follow the 2.2 % or 2 % amount, then how much money would not be available to support the missions in North America and beyond. I watched our churches faithfully increase their giving to the CP and decrease their own ministry outreach because there was not enough money to do this or that. If this 2% thing catches on, there may be a lot of little country churches and small city churches that begin sending their own missionaries to Africa, Mexico and Peru. Who knows? Think this may be part of the strategy all locked up in the SBC for fifteen years? I haven’t a clue. Just speculating along with others.
Would the little churches become satellites of the mega church in the city? Would they give their gifts to the mama and get supported as the mama sees fit as long as they reach their people group as instructed? Hmmmn….my brain is spinning with ideas. Maybe…we will see quickly what our new NAMB president plans to do. Maybe we will have to wait 15 years as others contend. Whatever…
We Christians in the meantime need to humble ourselves and pray, confess our sins, turn from our wicked ways [and thinking], seek God’s face–then He will hear from heaven and heal our land. It’s gonna take all of us…not just some wonderfully gifted, administrator, and leader to turn this country upside down for Jesus. Humbled men and women before the Most High God. selahV
Obviously, if we all gave 2.2%, the SBC would be in a world of hurt.
However, I think the key question is not what Highview gave to CP or Annie (though these are legitimate questions) but what Ezell can bring to NAMB. If he turns the ship around and NAMB is operating smoothly, establishing churches and organizing effective missions throughout North America, we will be inspired to give.
People want to give to something that works. If NAMB is dysfunctional and spinning its wheels, no one is motivated. The days are probably gone where people would give to support the denomination.
Can we sue under some kind of open records act in order to unseal those documents? Don’t we have any standing as the members?
Rick,
Are you serious??? I think you taking this whole thing a little to far…
Greg,
Bill is the one whose comment first hinted that the records now sealed for fifteen years might help us understand what may prove to be a hidden agenda. I’m merely agreeing with Bill, as do most Baptist journalists and perhaps a third of the convention.
And yes, I’m serious. We don’t hide the gospel under a bushel, so why should we hide our “secret plan” from the rest of the convention? If they were more forthcoming with information, I could afford to be less distrusting, but something about all this doesn’t really pass the smell test. Now open the documents and prove me wrong and I’ll be the first to admit there was never anything to hide. Then again, if there’s nothing to hide, why were the documents ever sealed in the first place?
The fact that they sealed those records speaks volumes. The only time you hide something is if it’s something you don’t want people to know.
Not necessarily, Joe. Secrets have power. Sometimes the “secret” itself is nothing, a molehill, a tempest in a teapot. But by creating a secret, the creators have power, and power is what some people desire and crave.
Joe
I agree with John here. I voted to open the records and think it was a mistake to seal them. But it could be like Al Capone’s vault – nothing significant inside except the personnel matters they talked of.
I don’t think we want to start holding Kevin Ezell responsible for the comments of others… even if they are members of his church???
I agree Greg.
How about holding him accountable for his own statements and his own abysmal record of giving and baptizing?
The problem doesn not seem to me to be the “comment of others,” but the fact that there is in my estimation not one Positive bit of evidence to show he is qualified for the job, except he is a nice guy.
Not enough in my estimation. I’m afraid I’m not going to like how this chapter is going to end.
“There have been dozens of successful church plants (Look up the Gallery Church of New York City for a great example) and have spread out across the city of Louisville to reach a vast number of people and demographics. Highview has brought the church, and consequently the gospel, to people. ”
Is NAMB still about “church planting”? If so, Highview has NOT “planted” more churches in Louisville. They have grown Highview by setting up more locations that are part of Highview. That is not a church plant.
Perhaps it would be wise to ask Ezell what constitutes a “church plant” in his mind since that is part of NAMB’s mission.
I guess I am concerned they would simply be funded as more locations for existing SBC mega’s across the US.
Opening satellite locations is still church planting in that much of the same work is required. Still have to go work to build a core and involve people in the new work and provide a range of ministries at the new location, etc, etc. Whether or not satellite locations are a good idea is a separate issue.
Chris…that would be an issue worth considering in the way things are going to work under the leadership of Ezell, wouldn’t it? The GCRTF has brought to the SBC a report that we must now consider as a kind of directive for the missions in NAMB and beyond. Then they unanimously give us Dr. Ezell, whom I know nothing about, but can only believe is one of God’s dearly beloved saints who is has the gift of administration for sure, and of course, mercy, evidenced by his love for orphaned children. I love the man already. What I do not know, and would like to know, is if he were to lower himself to our level and talk to a few of us who wear housecoats and sit in our mama’s basements( just kidding), is to define how he defines missions, and explain how he sees missions being implemented throughout the country under his leadership. Is he going to emphasizing the use of the larger mega-churches to build satellite churches beneath the arm of the mother church as he has done in Louisville? Are those satellites subserviant to the mega’s theology, philospophy, and missional mindset? Is he planning to do church plants throughout North America and will the pool of missionary pastors who go to these churches be drawn from the well of students ALL our SB seminaries? Will he involve other groups outside the SBC to accomplish the GCRTF’s missions objectives?
These are a few questions I would like to know. With all that has gone on before him, there is good reason for many ministers and Southern Baptists to wonder what our new president will bring us to support in prayer, in time, and in finances. It’s just normal stuff. Why are we in the blogs, and other places in the SBC, being dumped upon like Obama dumps on the Tea Party folks….like we do not matter?
Kevin Ezell (and his wife and family) have my prayers. I pray God’s sovereign grace be poured out upon them for protection, provision, and sufficiency to the task before them. I pray most for Bro. Ezell’s love to grow for the Lord Jesus Christ and also for his brothers and sisters in Christ in the SBC. I pray he is a bold, yet humble, man who exemplifies the Spirit of Christ and seeks His face above all others in discerning the paths upon which he should lead Southern Baptists. selahV
Lydia,
“I guess I am concerned they would simply be funded as more locations for existing SBC mega’s across the US.”
I’m not sure that’s such a bad idea… actually I will put my church up for adoption if some mega church want’s to partner with us.
Christian, Inc.
Ezell was elected President of NAMB today. See article in the Southern Baptist Texan:
http://texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=7022&issue=9/14/2010
David R. Brumbelow
David Miller–
Like you, I hold a “middle ground approach” on Dr. Ezell.
Pluses include:
* A man who knows him well vouching to me for his sincerity.
* His success in organizing and growing his mega church.
* His connection to Al Mohler (church member) who is a key ingredient individual in CR success.
Minuses include:
* His strange version of “church growth” = several satellite congregations with their ministers answering to him.
* His lack of support and trust in the CP
* His not having any personal experience with the NAMB
Who knows, BUT I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
One thing is absolutely certain: 3 strikes, if he fails, would be a death blow to missions where people are already doubting the way money is (was) being spent for a private jet / fancy new digs in the most affluent part of Atlanta and far removed from the airport / missionaries expected to serve on minimal salaries while “the boss” enjoys 3-digit money plus even more in fringe benefits and expense accounts.
My biggest question is: Can he be a Servant Leader of one of our most important mission endeavors???
I pray he will be such!!!
I’m guessing you meant 6-digit money. I hope we pay more than a “3-digit” salary.
I’m with CB in extending grace to our new NAMB CEO. I would add to that patience, an open mind about changes, and goodwill. We need some success at NAMB. Maybe he can bring some.
William, you have been consistently right on this – asking the right questions while maintaining the right spirit.
We, as SBC, use the 10% CP giving as a model but it is an unwritten mile post. Most of the time you see lower percentages, they are coming from larger churches that are giving large amounts but less percentage. They are also usually heavily involved in missions and church planting.
I am at what SBC consider a smaller church and I see some of the mega churches doing great work. They are simply doing as the Lord leads them and are effective.
Thus the push for Great Commission Giving. Though that was not accepted at the convention and CP was affirmed. Many of those mega churches have been increasing thier CP.
I think we all need to pray for Dr. Ezell and Dr. Page as well as the next IMB president. Each have a most difficult task of hearding cats. Just follow the flow of this blog.
God doesn’t have to use Southern Baptist, I just pray we are useable.
Good word.
Don’t panic . You might be losing both engines in a two engine aircraft and you are planning to put it in the river. It’s O.K. to ask questions and it’s O.K. to receive answers. This “ball” is just starting to roll.
David,
I was disturbed at Pastor Ezell’s response to questions about his church’s cooperative program and Annie Armstrong giving. It seems to show a thin skin that will not serve him well in a leadership role in our convention. That was not the most disturbing thing about his nomination and election to me. If you look at the following numbers given on BP at http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=33680 you will see several things that give concern. His church actually gave nothing for Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong in 2008.
His church baptized 121 in 2009 with an attendance of 3260. This number is consistent with what his church has done over several years. That works out to about 1 baptism for every 27 members. For the SBC as a whole that number is about 1 baptism for each 18 members. In other words, his church has a lower Baptism rate than the SBC as a whole and we know how our SBC baptism totals have been decreasing over the last few years. How can we ask someone to lead an agency that should be leading us to increase our baptism totals when he is not leading his church to even keep up with the rest of the SBC.
I do feel that it is difficult to object to his election based on his church’s cooperative program giving when many of our recent SBC presidents have similar or worse giving records. In addition there are a significant number of trustees that are serving and have served for the last 30 years with similar or worse giving records.
At this point, we have little choice but to pray for him and hope he will be the kind of leader NAMB needs.
My hope is that he will answer by his actions at NAMB the questions he refused to answer by word.
The deal is done now.
Friends, I’m not going to leave the comment stream here open much longer. Here’s the thing: the deal is done. Kevin Ezell is president of NAMB.
I’m not sure if I would have voted for him or not, were I given a vote. Lots to like about him and some serious questions about his denominational actions.
But he is now our guy at NAMB. Our duty now becomes to pray for him, support him and hope he is the man Ted Traylor and others have promised us that he would be.
I’ll be back a little later in the evening and probably shut this one down, so have your say now.
QUOTE His success in organizing and growing his mega church END QUOTE
Just for the record: he didn’t organize and grow a mega church. He took over a mega-church that had pastoral problems. Some might see this as “divine preparation” for a dsyfunctional NAMB.
But, the facts are the facts.
Great point, SSBN
As one who has been maybe a bit too open, I am going to pray for God to use President Ezell mightily in transforming the NAMB into a mighty ministry reaching people with the good news!
ABP reports that Kevin Ezell has been elected as the new NAMB President.
yeah, debbie, David Brumbelow told us that a few hours ago, at comment 123. thanks for the echo.
QUOTE His church baptized 121 in 2009 with an attendance of 3260 END QUOTE
So much for the myth that this man built anything, much less a mega-church.
There seems to be too much “smoke and mirrors” in regard to leadership in the SBC. This baptismal record is “DISMAL.” Of course, nobody will say that because it isn’t politically correct — so, I’ll say it twice: this baptismal record is dismal.
And, before someone slams me for “sour grapes” — our church baptized more people in the last month than anybody in the 60 year history can remember. We are a soul-winning church. We just happen to be a bit smaller. Last year our baptismal ration was significantly under the SBC average. So, I think I have a tiny, little bit, of moral authority to say that 3200+ people baptizing 121 or so is “dismal.”
So, what do we do as S. Baptists? Give him a promotion to control millions of dollars in in mission money. That’s just crazy in my estimation. 16 million Baptists and that’s the best we can do?
You know,
I did not think about this, but I wonder if Kevin Ezell is a UK fan? The WILDCAT NATION is on the SEC CONTINENT. Surely he is a WILDCAT NATION fan. LOUISVILLE is on the “big east” CONTINENT. That would be awful. Let’s all hope he knows better than to be for LOUISVILLE.
But, what if he is a SABANATION fan like Thom Rainer? That would be just great! If Ezell is a SABANATION fan, all you folks can lay your fears aside. He’s the right man for the job.
All in all, its been a good discussion everyone. Thanks for reasonable and measured response.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }