Randy Adams is the Executive Director of the Northwest Baptist Convention, an area covering Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho. He is a supporter of Ken Hemphill and a critic of J.D. Greear or at least of the type of Southern Baptist that JDG represents. Adams classified most SBC churches as “not fully cooperative” about which I had an earlier piece, Who fully supports the Cooperative Program?
In that Adams wrote, “Southern Baptists are at a critical crossroad. One road leads to the continuation of decline in CP missions giving and the continuation of the decline of the SBC (that is a subject for another article, but yes, we are in serious decline by most every measure). The other road will lead us to growth in our cooperative missions strategy.”
I judged this to be a salvo against J.D. Greear’s candidacy and his “not fully cooperative” Summit Church that is the largest CP giving church in North Carolina and which baptizes over 700 per year and is the church from which more IMB personnel come than any other SBC church in the 173 year history of the Convention.
Although we’ve been on the road of declining baptisms and CP giving percentages since before J. D. Greear entered the first grade, it’s fair to attempt to make a point about giving methods and preferences of churches. It is a bit shrill in my view to predict a calamitous future if Ken Hemphill is not elected. Count me as one who doesn’t think the SBC president drives or can steer these long term trends.
Nonetheless, I always appreciate someone like Randy Adams who thinks about how the SBC might be improved and prosper. His blog article of today, Trust and Partnership – A Recovery Plan for the SBC is such an effort.
I might as well be candid about the piece: It is in part an anti-NAMB screed and even promotes a new, anonymous anti-NAMB website. Adams believes that “talking openly and honestly” about our problems is good and I agree. While he talks openly and honestly, others slink around and talk anonymously. Perhaps he would insist on honesty in such things as well. I don’t know who is behind that slick website but evidently they don’t want it to be known who they are.
Adams maintains that baptisms and church starts have declined because of changes in NAMB’s funding to state conventions. NAMB is certainly subject to scrutiny in all that they do but I’m not all that enthused about a return to the status quo ante for NAMB. Pre-2010 it was a hot mess of wasteful spending, overbearing leadership, and fuzzy numbers.
It’s a bit of a disappointment that Adams seemingly doesn’t have any new ideas other than to go back to the system where NAMB collected money from churches through state conventions and then funneled it back through grants. The complaints about NAMB not adequately funding evangelism aren’t all that persuasive to me.
If there is a problem with church planting that is shown in a dearth of new plants then why don’t the legacy state conventions, the sixteen large southern states where most of the money originates and is kept, devote more of their revenues to starting churches, promoting evangelism, and the like?
The churches in these southern states collect about ten BILLION dollars from their members. Isn’t there enough in that to fund evangelism and church plants in Georgia, or Texas, or Tennessee? The Cooperative Program is still a huge funding engine, around half a billion annually. The state conventions KEEP 60% of this for their own use. That’s around $200 million dollars and over NINETY PERCENT of that stays in these 16 state conventions. It made perfect sense for NAMB to put their budget outside the south. How they do it and what the results are fair for criticism.
Part of the complaint is that NAMB doesn’t fund evangelism like they used to. I’d like for state convention leaders, particularly those in these 16 large state conventions in the south, to explain how with their hundreds of millions in revenues they are unable to adequately fund evangelism. It may well be that Washington, Oregon, and northern Idaho deserve more funding. Currently, the object of most of Adams’ criticism, NAMB, provides one-third of the NWBC budget. That third amounts to $1,824,000. I don’t know where NAMB’s $1.8 million is used in the state convention.
But what about this loss of “trust, respect, and true partnership” that Adams would like to restore? I’m all for it. Maybe it would help if leaders (1) stop shaming most SBC churches for not being fully cooperative, (2) accept that local churches should drive decisions about their own mission funding and not people on the SBC payrolls at any level, (3) avoid rancorous partisan fights in our elections, and (4) reject anonymous hit sites in favor of open, respectful dialogue.
I appreciate Randy Adams making an open, honest effort and putting his name and reputation behind it.
If we’re going to have a debate, let’s have a debate. I’m not seeing the seeds for any SBC recovery, either of trust and partnership or of our growth, in Adams’ article. Others may feel differently. I respect and appreciate the job Adams, his staff, Kevin Ezell and the NAMB staff, is doing. No doubt changes are afoot for all of us.
_____________
I’m not expecting anyone to step forward and identify themselves as being behind the new anti-NAMB website (it’s easily found) but if any of the astute SBCV readers are a part of it or know who is…let’s be “trust the Lord and tell the people” Southern Baptists. Stand up and be recognized. I have no problem with anyone making their case for different NAMB policies.
This article does not represent SBC Voices nor any other writer, editor, or administrator here. It’s my stuff alone and perhaps I’m missing something in it. Feel free to tell me something I need to know. We are, after all, all on the same side.
See you in sultry Dallas.
Let’s talk openly and honestly using an anonymous hit site as the basis.
William, no need for the disclaimer. We hope people realize that in the first place, but I’d be glad to cosign what you’ve written here.
I believe the figures showing much less church planting have been dealt with publicly many years ago. Before Ezell, the figures were being artificially inflated. Kevin’s first report to the SBC included him saying, “you have heard it said we planted X number of churches, but I tell you were really only planted Y (considerably lower).” He moved to accuracy in reporting. That’s at least part of the story, if not most of it, so opponents using figures like that is at least unfair, if not worse.
Brent, you nailed it. Before Kevin Ezell was elected president of NAMB, NAMB reported 1,500 new churches planted each year for several years. However, When Kevin Ezell took office at NAMB, he discovered that the actual number was about 500 each year. NAMB provided financial support for a new church plant for three years, so they counted that church start for three consecutive years. This was misleading, and Kevin Ezell put an end to it. So, to compare what NAMB is reporting now to the 1,500 average presented by NAMB in the pre-Ezell years is not accurate. It is hard to imagine that Adams does not know that such a comparison is inaccurate and unfair.
Thanks, I didn’t know the numbers but I’m glad you could back me up on that. Unbelievable they were reporting 3x their actual numbers.
500/yr with how many millions?
What I’ve found is that it’s easy to make critical comments like that from the sideline, when you actually get close and look you see that our people try to steward financial resources well. Plus. I’m confused by this. I thought one of the criticisms was that NAMB was saving too much money, but now they’re spending too much on church planting?
Brent
Noy sure if you are talking about me or not, but I have planted 3 churches on less than $10K
Yes, I was bi-vocational, Its not that expensive
NAMB church planters only receive a portion of their funding through NAMB. Sometimes they work another job to support themselves. Sometimes churches make up the difference so they can devote themselves fully to the work of planting. That seems to me to be a good model that works well with our doctrine of autonomy.
That’s exactly right, Adam.
Just a factual correction. Mark Terry and Brent Hobbs, NAMB did not “triple report” each church plant before Kevin Ezell. I know this for a fact because I oversaw the church planting team in Oklahoma for 8 years and our churches were only reported one time. Whether there was a state convention that triple reported, I don’t know. Remember, assertions are not facts nor are they arguments. Asserting that there was gross number inflation before Ezell is not the same as proving it. Was there any number inflation prior to 2010? I don’t know, perhaps there was. But it was not triple, that i know for a fact. Also, if you look at the NAMB yearly reports, the church planting budget was approx $21 million prior to 2010. Currently its over $76 million. But it is a fact that we planted far fewer churches in 2016 and 2017 than we did in 2011-2015, which were Ezell’s years. Why the steep drop-ff? Why are we not planting 1,500 per year as KE said we would under him. All we get from NAMB in response to honest critique, using real data, are a few happy stories about places that are better off today because of church planting. I praise God for good news anywhere. And some of that is where i serve in the Northwest. But beware of assertion and cherry-picked stories substituting for rational argument.
My opinion of “Full Cooperation” is that all SBC Churches that give are “in full cooperation” especially since there in no minimum amount of money required to be an SBC Church
The different programs should be happy and excited for all money received from these Churches.
Indiana (historically) has been one of the worse States in regards to spending money on actual outreach/missions. I do not know hiw it is now since I moved from there several yrs ago
I have zero problem with sites like Reform NAMB who are just sharing facts. In fact if recent history suggests it’s sites like these that help to bring greater transparency and reform.
Except when “facts” are deceptively presented and taken out of context, like the church planting numbers I mentioned in the comment above, it’s just lying without accountability.
I agree context is important but NAMB needs to help themselves by being transparent and overly communicative. Why the purchase of those properties so far away from Send Cities? Why hold onto 223 million dollars?
Are you involved with the site Andrew?
You may notice that this site, SBC Voices, puts up a lot of data about SBC entities and there’s always a name affixed to the article. No reason the anti-namb site couldn’t do the same. I’m all for transparency. Let’s have it.
This is a great piece, William. Very thoughtful and, I believe, common sense. I would co-sign this with you.
I also agree with Brent’s assessment in his comments — it’s unfair to compare previously inflated numbers to now accurate reporting. I have no problem with a thorough critique of NAMB policies and partnership decisions, but I think those critiques should be fair and not misleading.
Yes indeed
Cultural and racial diversity necessarily fosters unity. Its ironic that diversity of opinion can be the essence of dis-unity especially where “facts” are massaged for the sole purpose of creating conflict. I wish there was an SBC by-law that would hold accountable the publicaly intentional liars and activate a process that would culminate in their dis-fellowship. I suppose that’s why they’re almost always “anonymous”. Such liars are antichrists and our big tent ought not be that big.
The low church planting figures seems to be explained. Are the, according to the article William critiqued, record low baptism numbers of concern? It’s not much more than one per church plant
Sure, everyone is concerned about baptism numbers. I’d challenge the assumption that they are down because NAMB has less evangelism people in Alpharetta or because they devote less of their money, specifically as a category, to evangelism. I’d also think that closer scrutiny should be given to any claim that church plants show lower baptisms. I’m not much of a believer that the SBC’s large organizations and big names can drive baptism numbers.