(William’s blog, the SBC Plodder, has had some insightful commentary on state and national entities and their spending priorities. Here is another entry from the Plodder questioning the questioners – those who are not happy with NAMB’s current spending priorities. Worth a read!)
The North American Mission Board is Southern Baptists’ second largest entity with a budget for 2012 of $115 million. NAMB gets the second largest slice of Cooperative Program money, about ten percent. Their annual mission offering, the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions, totaled over $56 million in 2011.
One wonders, just how do we expect NAMB to spend our money?
Were Southern Baptists satisfied with the spending under prior administrations which included overseas trips to movie premiers, ice sculptures for in house events, and millions in wasted money on programs now defunct?
Were Southern Baptists satisfied with centralizing spending in NAMB’s Alpharetta headquarters with hundreds of employees and paying millions in travel expenses?
Were Southern Baptists satisfied that NAMB in reaching North America for Christ, was spending only about twenty-eight cents on every budgetary dollar on church planting?
Are Southern Baptists displeased that headquarters employment and spending and travel expenses have been cut by many millions and that spending on church planting will consume forty-two cents on every 2012 budgetary dollar?
I hear a lot of general complaining about NAMB but I’d like to hear someone make the case made for the status quo ante at NAMB.
Aha, it’s about NAMB cutting funding to state conventions some say.
Fair enough. Can we talk data?
NAMB no longer pays insurance for positions they fund at less than a 50% level (although I understand that for some of these they have agreed to take several years to transition the ending of that funding). There are several positions that NAMB funds at a very insignificant sum, couple of hundred dollars a month, for which they have paid 100% of insurance costs.
Does anyone think it inappropriate that this system be ended?
NAMB has a policy that is reducing cooperative funding to the stronger state conventions and increasing funding in the weaker state conventions.
Do Southern Baptists think this is unwise or unfair?
A commenter here made the assertion that NAMB is “decimating” missions in the Colorado Baptist General Convention.
Well, not really, if funding is any measure of things, since NAMB has increased funding to Colorado by about one third for 2012. Other states may wish for NAMB to decimate missions in their state in this manner.
A popular blogger from New Mexico lamented NAMB’s cutting of mission funding for his state.
Well, really. NAMB has dropped their funding for New Mexico by about $222,000 for 2012, about a twenty percent cut.
Seems New Mexico is a pretty strong Southern Baptist state with well over 300 congregations serving a total population of right at two million. In fact, the case can be made from the data that New Mexico is a stronger Southern Baptist state than even Florida and than every other state outside the South except for Wyoming. NAMB has adjusted their funding based on parameters that make sense to me, although making sense isn’t always the measure in SBC funding issues.
I wish someone would make the case for NAMB spending our money differently and in doing so specifically address all of the above.
I’ve seen Kevin Ezell and, to make a wild conjecture, he doesn’t look like he can walk on water. I suppose he has made some mistakes at NAMB and perhaps some of the new NAMB policies are not wise, not workable, or appropriate.
Would some insightful SBCer please make the case for how NAMB can better spend our money.
The field for doing so is wide open. Have at it.