Now that statement is a shot across the bow but it isn’t much of a surprise or shock.
About the only meaningful change wrought by the Great Conservative Resurgence Report, which blue ribbon GCR committee was chaired by Ronnie Floyd and adopted overwhelmingly (3 to 1 ratio in favor) by the SBC in annual session a decade ago, was that the North American Mission Board be
“liberat[ed] to conduct and direct a strategy of reaching the United States and Canada with the Gospel and planting Gospel churches…Thus, we believe that the North American Mission Board must be refocused and unleashed for greater effectiveness.”
The expression of that was NAMB being able to control their own budget and spending. As the letter puts it, this would “leave the states with little or no role in the assessment, supervision, or evaluation of church planters or statewide personnel.” The secret (I have never seen one, nor ever seen one published anywhere, thus my use of “secret” a word SBCers hate) system of Cooperative Agreements between NAMB and state conventions was altered in favor of NAMB. SBCers give $100 million each year to NAMB through the Cooperative Program and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. The AA offering has been at or near record levels for several years an indication of support from the churches.
So, why the complaints from some state conventions?
The essence is that NAMB expects to spend their own money rather than relinquish control to the states. The complaints about NAMB are not new and are perfectly legitimate in the sense that state convention leaders would rather just get a general grant of money from NAMB that the state can spend on what needs they see. I admit that this characterization oversimplifies the system.
I might as well be candid and opinionated here. SBCers put money into state conventions for decades with not a lot to show for it. Just like in the southern states that still make up over 90 percent of SBC revenues, membership, and churches, a state convention with a building, staff, and accouterments was considered important. These non-south state conventions (some cover several states) enjoyed money from NAMB to pay their staff and other things thought to be priorities. NAMB would rather put money where they saw priorities; thus, conflict.
Notice that the first name on the letter to NAMB is Randy Adams, leader of the Northwest Baptist Convention, candidate for SBC president had we had an annual meeting this year, and longtime critic of NAMB. He classified most SBC churches as “not fully cooperative” if they gave less than the average CP percentage. That was a shot at J D Greear back in 2018 (links in an earlier article here). Maybe Adams will continue his quest for the SBC presidency when we can meet and vote again. Southern Baptists will have a choice. I’d expect Adams to be a favorite with the new network. All is fair. We get our guy. You get your guy. We vote.
NAMB isn’t perfect but the SEND program (plural now that we have SEND Relief) seems to be the most popular national program with Southern Baptists. Critics have various complaints about NAMB: they have too much money, they’re buying properties for planters to live in temporarily in some of the SEND cities, they’re unnecessarily spending money on this or that, their church planting metrics are poor, etc. Nothing new under the SBC sun.
NAMB does have a clear role, something lacking in the past. To get all macro on readers, state conventions, especially in the south don’t have a clear role whatever slogans or declarations they may make. NAMB can take their budget and apply it in new ways. State conventions are burdened by a ton of legacy spending. For now, I trust NAMB more than state conventions.
What can the six states do? Here are the options that they mention in the letter:
As we have attempted to understand how we fit into the evolving NAMB paradigm and
continue to support the work of the churches in our state conventions, many of us and our boards have contemplated such responses as declining to enter into any agreements with NAMB, retaining a larger percentage of Cooperative Program funds for the work of the state conventions, designating giving only to specific SBC work, reducing promotion of the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering and replacing it with a more robust state missions offering, or even creating unique state-facilitated partnerships. Some of us would like to go on an annual block-grant system like southern state conventions. They each receive $300,000 annually from NAMB. No non-south convention will receive even close to this amount by October 2021.
The option to decline to enter into cooperative agreements has always been there. All of the states are autonomous and may choose this.
The option of retaining a larger percentage of CP funds is entirely the state convention choice. These six states account for around 3% of total CP revenues so the reduction of what is received in Nashville is regrettable, but not highly significant. Were I a CEO in one of these states, I’d make an opportunity cost decision on CP percentages. If I thought I could spend the money better in Alaska, or New Mexico, I’d make my case to the churches in that state.
If these states choose to promote the Annie Armstrong offering less vigorously, I’m not sure what impact that would have. NAMB can promote directly to churches and pastors. If a state replaced Annie with another offering of their own, that would be regrettable but it has it’s own difficulties. Annie is an established brand. Maybe the state could effectively replace it. Maybe not.
The creation of “unique state-facilitated partnerships” is, I suppose, a threat to bypass NAMB and activate a direct state-to-state arrangement, Alaska with Louisiana, for example. It would certainly signal a deterioration of overall cooperation among the 42 state conventions through our national entities, offerings, and the CP. States in the south (associations as well) have long created cooperative partnership arrangements with non-southern states. What Adams and the others are threatening is a magnitude or two escalation of those partnerships.
The states want “block grants,” money just given, not controlled. Denominational politics at work. Churches in a state like Georgia put millions in NAMB through the CP and AA and NAMB returns a small part the churches’ money directly to the Georgia state convention. I get the concept. I also get that Georgia keeps for their own use about 60% of every CP dollar given by churches in this state. One might ask why 60% of total CP revenues isn’t enough without any block grant kickback to the state?
Above my pay grade.
NAMB has responded (the response is reported here) by saying, in part:
[NAMB] Board members pushed back on what the six state convention leaders criticized as a lack of cooperation, instead calling it “our way of stewarding the resources we invest in NAMB strategies.” They also disputed the earlier letter’s assertion that NAMB had drawn up the SCAs with no input from the conventions.
One might look at the six states banding for this as sort of a lobbying group. It’s a public, civilized way to debate current denominational policies concerning funding and spending.
One thing for certain: NAMB will always have critics. But, imagine an SBC world where we have civilized, respectful debates about policies publicly, and not in back rooms or airport hotels. I like the concept. If this letter promotes that, I’m all for it even if I don’t share the goals of the six state leaders.
______________
Some of the SBC Voices team are non-south pastors. They may view this differently than your humble hacker and plodder blogger whose mortal body will be unlikely to leave the Peach State but soul and spirit headed to a fairer land. Just not anytime soon, one hopes.
Recognize the graphic? NAMB’s SEND logo.
I served on the NAMB board of trustees for 9 years. I was there through the years of transition and transformation of NAMB. I served on the south region committee during the time of renegotiating the cooperative agreements with the southern state conventions. The reason NAMB moved to block grants was to redirect more church planting dollars to the non-southern states. But, in order to receive the funds for personnel, those positions had to fall under NAMB’s church planting strategy and accountability structure. NAMB was no longer going to fund multiple unproductive staff positions. I gather some states simply don’t like the accountability tied to NAMB funding. I imagine most Southern Baptists like myself appreciate dollars being invested with purpose and accountability.
Well put
It is disheartening to hear that we have state conventions who are pushing some kind of agenda within the SBC to get a cut of an offering that is not, and should not be collected for them. When I lead my church to contribute to the Annie Armstrong offering, we intend those funds to be used for mission work and church planting efforts nationwide and in Canada. When we do so, we should have confidence that the funds collected will not be siphoned off to others entities like the state conventions. My church contributes to an annual offering that focuses on state-wide efforts. This is the kind of “in fighting” that contributes nothing to fulfilling the Great Commission. Its sad that we have “leaders” who feel the need for such things.
You are absolutely right that AAEO funds should be used for mission work and church planting. The funds in question are generally earmarked toward evangelism in non-South state conventions. So the issue at hand is really more about whether it’s better for the state convention or for NAMB to provide accountability in how evangelism funds are used in a specific state/region.
Since some of the non-South state conventions have much higher baptism rates than the SBC in general, and since regional cultures can vary widely, I would argue that a state convention is more qualified to make decisions about what kinds of evangelism strategies are effective and how evangelism dollars should be used than a NAMB representative.
I’m not going along with your conclusion that a S.C. is more qualified to do evangelism and planting in their area. Too much history and evidence of this not being so. After watching this for a few decades, I’d rather have namb spend their own money. Any state convention can raise $$ from the churches and spend it where they wish.
This is a legitimate disagreement and I respect your views.
Why doesn’t NAMB open it’s books and allow the people to know how many houses they have bought? How about telling the truth about how much they pay Hunt? How much money did NAMB give James McDonald’s church planting network in Chicago? How about the fact that NAMB spends twice as much planting churches in 2020 but planted less than half the churches they reported in 2010! Then there was $175,000 grant funnelled to Alanta church that turned their backs on the SBC after taking the money. What NAMB needs is a new leader. Ezell, Floyd and their good ol boy system needs to go. Open your eyes the GCR was nothing more than a restructure so Ezell could control more money.
It is really sad that you think so little of a brother in Christ and that you think so highly of yourself to presume to know the motives of his heart. Kevin loves the SBC and is leading well. I know him and he is a man of integrity. Your accusation is an ungodly attack on a man’s character.
Do you want to invest little in more churches with a high failure rate or more in fewer churches with a high long term viability and multiplication rate?
NAMB gives many churches grants and loans, it has for many years. It’s the lack of integrity of the church that pulled out – It is my understanding the funds have been requested to be returned but the church refused.
People complain about the real estate purchases, but this is actually a really smart move. This allows us to support church planting movements in urban areas, while having an asset that is used strategically over time. Planters don’t live in them long term. Those homes are utilized time and again as planters are equipped and mobilized in cities.
Steve askes some valid questions, but you deflect to “ungodly attack…” Why did you not say, “Touch not my anointed.” You write of “high failure rates” in the past, and fewer and high long term viability churches of today. CornerstoneATL hasn’t been a long term success with CP/AAEO dollars, has it? At the moment, my state is in disaster relief mode, so I can’t elaborate.
There were some cheap shots. No one is happy about cornerstone. There’s a narrative the anti namb group follows. Anyone who pays attention recognizes it. The letter from the six ceos was pointed but respectful.
We can’t legitimately say that we have only two choices of investing little money in churches with a high failure rate or more money in churches with high long-term viability.
Not every church planter will go through/pass NAMB assessments for various reasons (rural location, not a native English speaker, local planter who wants to plant where he’s from). That doesn’t mean these churches aren’t necessary or won’t be “successful.”
In the same way, not every planter that goes through NAMB assessments will receive the full amount of NAMB funding (sliding scale of funding that reduces funds for planters outside of Send Cities and those who work bivocationally). That doesn’t mean that these planters are less valuable.
In my area, there have been approximately twice as many church plants outside of the Send City as within it. These churches may not be the priority in NAMB’s strategy, but they are still vital for Kingdom work.
After thinking about this a bit, please call Randy Adams and discuss this with him and see if there is context we need. I’d offer to do that, but Dad retired too long ago for me to have met him and the only time I interacted with the Office recently was a couple of years back for a hotel referral when my daughter was getting married and my sister needed Mom’s space.
I think SBCVoices should reach out to folks they’re going to mention by name as a matter of courtesy to get a direct comment if they’re interested. This is not suggesting the post is wrong. Just that maximizing communication, understanding, and frankly love between the brothers and sisters seems comely.
Adams writes a good bit. If he or any of the others thought additional context was needed they surely would have included it. The whole point was publicity in the SBC for their disagreement with namb…so here it is. It’s not like this is the first time this has come up.
I can’t speak for the others here but I’d guess any state convention leader is welcome to make his case on SBCV. Nothing wrong with healthy discussions on important SBC policies.
I ask that all who post and read articles here on SBC Voices to pray for all of us who serve as Trustees on the North American Missions Board at this particular time. We have “a lot on our plates” right now and we need spiritual knowledge and godly wisdom sufficient to our task. Therefore I stress my request again. Pray for us.
Let me rephrase my request, if I may. “. . . pray for all of us who serve as *your* Trustees on the North American Missions Board . . .”
Trustees represent the local churches affiliated with the SBC to our (SBC) boards, agencies, and institutions. Therefore we are “your” Trustees to NAMB. Please pray for us.