Josh Collins linked to this webcast. Since we have published a couple of posts here that call NAMB’s strategies into question, giving Ezell equal time seems fair.
It is confusing though. Everything I am being told by friends and co-laborers who work with NAMB is diametrically different than what Ezell is saying. Are we comparing apples to oranges here? Is each side grasping a different part of the elephant and assuming its the whole thing? What’s going on? Anyway, here’s the video.
DOM/CPC Update – April 9, 2012 from North American Mission Board on Vimeo.
Here’s the link to the transcript.
For any who don’t get the title of this, I’m referring to the old saw about the men who all grasped the elephant – one grabbed the tail and said it was like a snake, one grabbed the leg and said it was a tree, one grabbed the trunk, one grabbed the tusk. Each described the elephant in a different way.
I have friends, people I trust who have no axe to grind against SBC leadership, who are telling me there is a huge problem, that NAMB is bypassing partnerships and such.
Ezell says all of this is untrue.
I hope and believe that neither side is being untruthful, but that maybe they are all holding onto a different part of the elephant.
I don’t know that anyone disputes that NAMB is to some degree bypassing state conventions. Here are two quotes from the link that address this:
“Most of the funding transitioned out of state convention budgets came from perpetual underspends. These are monies NAMB made available year after year to a particular state convention for a specific position or project, but the state did not spend. Across all state conventions, these underspends totaled approximately $5 million annually.”
Wm: Ezell said that NAMB is spending $8 million directly, not through partnerships with the states. He makes the case that most of this is money the states were not spending themselves. Do the states have a response to this?
“In one Western state convention, Ezell said, only 25 percent of NAMB’s monies designated for church planting actually made their way directly to church plants or church planter missionaries.”
Wm: Is NAMB to be expected to funnel money to state conventions to build staff and traditional state convention structures? If state conventions say that they know how to do missions and church planting in their own states and their method is to add centralized staffing and expenses, is NAMB justified in bypassing them?
““What we’re trying to do,” Ezell continued, “is to not spend as much money on infrastructure and [send] more money directly to those missionaries—the church plants and church planters. We are just making sure that money goes to the missionaries.””
This is a debate worth having.
Yep, it is a debate worth having. And I am convinced we are going to have it throughout the convention structure. The state execs are evidently planning to stand up on this one. Could be interesting.
Yeah, I can count to three…
I commend Dave Miller for his providing a decent arena where interested Southern Baptists can have a civil discussion on this.
That’s the goal, my friend.
I watched this whole thing. Overall, it sounds pretty reasonable most of the time, but I take issue with this particular bit. I got this from the transcript that Josh posted in the other thread.
Ezell began the webcast by addressing impressions that NAMB has de-emphasized evangelism in recent months.
“That is simply not the case,” he said. “We have half a million dollars more that we are spending on evangelism now (2012) than we were in 2009. So it has actually increased.”
Ezell said it would be wrong to conclude that since evangelism staffing levels at NAMB are lower, NAMB’s commitment to evangelism has decreased.
I am in an area where we will lose the state staff member who focuses on evangelism and promoting evangelism, including the current GPS push from NAMB after the end of next year, because NAMB is not going to continue to fund that position. That isn’t a loss of staff at Alpharetta, it is a loss of a person who is doing real work on the ground. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that it is happening in other new work areas as well. By the way, my understanding is that the money that will be saved from eliminating that state evangelism director will be funneled to church planting.
This wasn’t underspent money, it was being used and now it will be redirected at NAMB’s discretion from evangelism to church planting. I guess it is just a matter of focus.
Is it wise, the best, most efficient use of Annie Armstrong dollars to recreate in new work states the state convention structure that we have here in Georgia or South Carolina or Arkansas, which structure centralizes certain personnel including a state evangelism director?
NAMB evidently thinks not and prefers to use their money differently.
States may still have such centralized personnel if they choose to fund them. NAMB seems to be choosing not to.
An interesting study would be to examine all of the new work state conventions to see just how quickly they move to create a centralized administrative structure, how many people and how much money is put into this, and how efficient this is in carrying out their work of planting churches and building membership.
NAMB may be dead wrong on this but this sort of hard examination of the status quo, conventional thinking is sensible to me, though unusual in SBC life.
Just to clarify, this is a new work state that had already moved to a decentralized method in order to get personnel closer to the field (before NAMB adopted the same methods). It was far from the status quo and was actually proving to be a good system for us as we shook out some of the bugs. There was obviously something worth doing in this since NAMB is essentially copying the method. However they are still choosing to gut the ability to staff a single person to serve with a focus on evangelism. So pardon me if his language rings a little shallow on that front.
SBC Ranger,
I guess I just don’t see the difference between Evangelism and Church Planting. I thought they both flowed out of the Great Commission and were essentially one and the same.
In the sense that the end results of both efforts should help us to make disciples, I would agree with you. But a single person can only do so much and if we are talking about men focusing on different aspects of ministry it makes sense to share the load between the two.
NAMB is still pushing the GPS evangelism strategy alongside its newly mandated focus on church planting so it differentiates between the two. Forcing one guy to negotiate all of those demands from NAMB is asking a bit much in my opinion.
SBC Ranger,
One of Dr. Ezell’s first actions at NAMB was to eliminate funding to the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists (COSBE). Cutting funds for SBC’s long-time support of itinerant evangelists would not appear to support Ezell’s statement that NAMB has not de-emphasized evangelism. I’m sure that COSBE will be glad to hear that he has found some more money for evangelism in his new budget; perhaps he will direct some of that back to those itinerant ministers who could engage their work alongside NAMB’s overall evangelism effort.
Max, this gets back to the point of my previous post on NAMB. Ezell didn’t have much choice about making cuts – the economy and whatever is going on in the SBC busted the budget. Cuts were essential.
In his defense, Ezell made cuts at home first and foremost. He didn’t cut the ministries and keep the admin. He cut the office budget and staff first. He deserves credit for that.
Dave – Dr. Ezell didn’t just cut funds to COSBE, he eliminated their support entirely! In his scramble out of the chute at NAMB, he redirected funds from COSBE and other ministries to launch the church planting program.
While it can be argued that evangelism should be a natural outgrowth of church plants, SBC has been supportive of the role of itinerant evangelists in overall Great Commission endeavors. Evangelists who have belonged to COSBE have included the likes of Billy Graham, Vance Havner, Mordecai Ham, Roy Fish, Manley Beasley, and countless others. There are over 200 vocational evangelists currently in COSBE’s ranks http://www.sbcevangelist.org/~evangelists/evangelists.php It would be good to see these seasoned evangelists come alongside new church plants to work the field together.
I’m well aware of the need to sharpen the pencil when economic times are tough. Dr. Ezell’s cut of administrative areas and office expenditures does deserve credit. The toughest cuts are those folks you have to look at. I just wish he had paced himself more prudently (the 7-year transition he talked about) and preserved a line item for itinerant evangelists, even if that support was at a lower amount than in times past.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with you, Max. I appreciate some of Ezell’s cuts and question others.
Ultimately, here’s the challenge. We have to assume that NAMB, pre-Ezell, was not doing anything evil. Maybe they weren’t effective and certainly there were leadership issues, but they were attempting to do God’s work.
So, when cuts are necessitated, there is going to be pain. If Ezell hadn’t made a priority of cuts in Alpharetta, there might be a mutiny going on! He deserves credit for making a priority of clearing budget there.
But that leaves everything else. He has the option: across the board cuts to everyone, or making decisions about what is most important.
He chose to establish priorities and fund on that basis.
So, he cuts some things and funds others. He wants a church-planting network to be the priority, so he focuses on that.
I think that is the issue SBs need to discuss. Do we want our NA ministries to be focused on a church-planting network or do we want a broader, more balanced focus?
Anyway, its an interesting discussion.
But, isn’t it a bit inconsistent to cut COSBE out and then provide office space and support for Johnny Hunt’s conference ministry?
It is actions like cutting COSBE and the heavy-handed dealing with State Conventions, along with what looks like cronyism, that makes people in the typical SBC church wonder if someone has a personal agenda.
I’m not saying I know this to be the case, or that it is even the case. I just know that when everyone is in the same boat, if some are not rowing in the same direction, the boat is going to go in circles.
If, as Dave suggests, there is just one elephant–we better step back and get a better perspective or the elephant is going to crush us.
What NAMB did to COSBE was to cut the spending about $100k of Annie Armstrong and Cooperative Program on food, lodging, and travel expenses for evangelists.
I’d love to have someone pay my convention expense this or any other year.
If I remember rightly, one COSBE member put out a statement in the press about God bringing curses on NAMB for doing so. I guess you could try that approach and see if your convention funding comes in, William.
William,
This is not entirely true either. NAMB was providing COSBE $90K a year and granted some of that money was for travel expenses to the national convention so evangelists could meet with pastors at the convention and schedule revivals. There are costs associated with even being at the national convention and these monies helped COSBE with those expenses. There were also monies left over to help vocational evangelists go to churches who had not had any baptisms get re-energized and see people come to the Lord in times of revival and spiritual renewal in those churches.
NAMB’s budget was $115 Million… so I am sure it was certinly prudent to cut the $90K to COSBE… when the general perception is that there are those in the SBC who would like to see the SBC get away from the itenerate Bible thumpin’ preacher who uses invitational evangelism to bring people to the altar and not to Jesus.
No, surely that had nothing to do with COSBE’s defunding.
><>”
Back when this was done, Bob, I asked about it. NAMB was spending $100k on meals, lodging, and travel for folks to attend. They kept in their budget money for COSBE’s website and funds to help smaller churches who had a paucity of baptisms to use evangelists.
Bob,
I certainly hope you are wrong in your implications—
but, I don’t think you are that far off the mark. The SBC has for many years now pursued “relational non-evangelism” rather than traditional “Bible thumpin'” preachers as you call it.
I still use traditional “Bible thumpers” and I consistently see results as evidenced through our baptisms. Could we do more? You bet. But, I still feel God gives some to be “evangelists.”
I don’t think that is the prevailing theology in regard to evangelism in some of the more “emergent, hip, cutting edge” congregations.
Bob, here’s a sad consequence of not using these “gifts” from God — God isn’t giving as many. It is harder and harder to find God-called evangelists to come to your church.
I don’t think $90 K or $100K will prove to be good place to save.
William,
I too was one of the first to hear about this issue because of relationships I have with some of the evangelists… as I said earlier, only about 1/2 of the 90K went to convention expenses… but when you take into consideration that most of the SBC entities have budgets to get their people to and from the conventions and for pro-SBC promotional booths and presentations, I do not believe this was as irresponsible a move as NAMB made it out to be; COSBE has no source of income other than dues of members who are doing what they do at their own peril in the first place; if NAMB is not going to help them then it would not seem to me out of bounds for the Executive committee to fund COSBE as it funds NAMB!
What a novel thought that ought to be. I am personally convinced there was more to the cuts than simple economics but that is just my opinion.
Frank,
It is indeed getting increasingly more difficult for vocational evangelists to do what they do. However, they are still out there and they are still telling people about Jesus.
I am confident NAMB will not spend $100K anywhere else to do any more good for the local churches and conversions… than what these vocational evangelists were and ARE doing!
><>”
Sour grapes.
I watched the video and I have to admit that my interpetations may be bias since there is a lack of trust on my part and many of my fellow minstry brethren in South Georgia. Many here beleive that there is a lot of cronyism going on in the SBC. The “perception” (I use this word since preseident Ezell started the answer to most of the questions, “I know that there is a perception….) the perception that we hear is that everyone elected to office in the SBC for the last few years is part of the “group” of mega-church pastors and two seminary presidents that are running the Convention. We do not consider the men evil, but having a different worldview than most small town and rural churches. Some of his answers are acceptable, yet, some are questionable. One last thing. what is the status of the Acts 29 churches. Does NAMB still support them or has there been a change?
A suggestion: Ask NAMB about the ACTS29 churches. Their answer, I’d guess, will be that they only support churches that are in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message.
At some point someone is going to have to point to a NAMB church plant and declare that it does not conform to the BFM and then show how it does not. Up to now, we’ve got a lot of declarations but little evidence.
Cronyism? This is the SBC, the ultimate back-slapping, go along/get along group….however…NAMB cut 100 positions in Alpharetta. If you’re going to put all your cronies in cushy jobs, you had better keep jobs, not cut them. NAMB has hired some folks but most of the people they fund come through the state conventions. They are moving to put half their $115m budget into church planting. Not too many cronies want to do the hard work of planting a church, desks are preferred.
Good, we have cut cronyism in half. Now, all is well.
Sounds like gas price strategy: raise it a dollor so when you cut it a dime everyone will feel you were generous.
I’m not convinced cronyism has been cut — just restyled.
Give NAMB some slack. If we combed through our state budgets as closely we do NAMB’s we would be upset with them about some of their choices. Something had to be done because it wasn’t a well oiled machine when he arrived. Vance Havner told of a man with a broken arm who didn’t want the bone set, just a shot to ease the pain. In order to fix these problems it will be painful at first but to do nothing and expect it to get better is foolishness. He is the appointed leader, let him lead.
I think you make a good point, Harold, and we should remember the things that you have raised.
However, the days when we would just sit back and let our “appointed leaders” lead us where they want to go – those days have probably gone for good.
I think it is right to give Ezell the slack you refer to, but I also think it is a fair discussion to have. Especially when you live in a state in which NAMB’s cuts are causing upheaval in our structure.
I don’t want to stop the discussion, just balance it a bit. As far as following the leader goes, the whole SBC is struggling with that. How long does the average pastor stay?
I guess pain is relative . . . my hurts me more than yours hurts me.
It is easy to say: “just let him lead.” I think that is the very same attitude that created the problem in the first place.
My problems are not with personalities, but with philosophies of missions that I think are wrong-headed. I am only one voice–I realize that–but I think trying to transform NAMB into an exclusively church-planting ministry is not a change of direction, but a completely different strategy.
I don’t think this is what most SBC churches want as evidenced by the backlash at the State level.
NAMB (the Home Mission Board) was never intended to be a single-issue entity, like say ACTS29. I would like to support Ezell, but we are not on the same page in regard to what should be the mandate of NAMB.
I may prove to be in the minority and an ACTS29 type function may be what most of the SBC want for NAMB. So be it. If that’s how this pans out then that’s how it pans out.
If and when that time comes, the discussion will be over for me. For now, I think it is helpful that we continue to discuss the matter and not simply “let him lead.”
Bingo! I had a discussion today with a friend about disaster relief and the comment was made that NAMB would probably like to stop funding it if they could figure out a way to avoid the PR disaster that would certainly follow. I have gotten the impression as I have gotten more involved in DR in our own state that they have been doing far less in the last couple of years in DR from a national level. DR is one of the main areas that can truly benefit from a national structure alongside the states and local associations because disasters come in scope and size that varies from local to large scale..
NAMB is not a single issue entity now. Never has been. The slam on NAMB for years was that they did a thousand different things, none of them particularly well.
And let’s not overlook the fact that the SBC adopted the GCR report which called, recommended, that NAMB do the things they are doing: put half their budget into church planting, phase out the legacy, 1950s vintage, Cooperative Agreements with the state conventions. No one at NAMB dreamed this stuff up. The SBC in session adopted the goals and language.
Perhaps you have a mandate for Kevin Ezell and NAMB that differs with this. Well and good. He and NAMB trustees would be irresponsible, and non-responsive to the SBC speaking in the most official way it can, were they to listen to you or me on this instead of SBC messengers.
The SBC may rescind or amend the GCR report points about NAMB. They may do it this June in New Orleans. I suspect that we will see some resolution offered on the matter.
William,
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that the GCR recommended that NAMB phase out the existing Cooperative Agreements with the State Conventions. That is, in fact, what th GCRTF Final Report says. But, it also gave a timeline of seven years for this phase-out. The seven year timeframe was itself a revision of the four year phase-out in the interim report. Therefore, at the very least, there should have been a four year phase-out, but, from the language that was changed and finally adopted, the phase-out should have taken seven years.
I know for a fact that the new NAMB started uniilaterally trying to implement new “Partnership” Agreements with the State Conventions within 10 months of the Final Report. I put “partnership” in quotes because it has been made abundantly clear by words and actions towards multiple state conventions that the new NAMB has a quite different definition of “partnership” and “cooperation.”
The new NAMB can’t have it both ways and expect everyone to just get in line and say, “We will follow our leaders,” particularly when they are not even following the mandate given in the GCRTF Final Report for phase-out of the old partnership agreements and the implementation of the new. IMO, the implementation of the new Strategic “Partnership” Agreements with the State Conventions has, in fact, contravened the clear language and intent of the GCRTF Final Report and has been done in a less than responsible and a way less than responsive way.
The new NAMB may not have dreamed up the part about phasing out the old agreements and coming up with new ones. But, they are dreaming when it comes to math, years, and timetables. And, their dreams have become nightmares for many states, not just the big states like GA and AL, but the western states like CA, NM, CO, and others that were “promised” help with the GCR. At least that’s the way I see facts on the ground in my state. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
They may not be a “single issue” entity in theory, but the way they are behaving in practice sure seems to be more “single-issue” than not. I work in DR and have been getting more involved in it over the last year or so. I wrote a post on this very site sometime last year after NAMB made some hints about finding ways to integrate church planting into DR. When they talk like that, it sure sound like there is a single issue that overrides all others.
At the risk of someone reading what I’m about to write and concluding I’m not a conservative, I’ll accept that criticism if you read my next sentence carefully:
Please raise your hand if you thought the Conservative Resurgence–which aimed at using political power to control the national convention’s assets in an effort to control the doctrinal direction of the convention–wouldn’t eventually sideline the state conventions?
I never thought that, though it was clear there would be trouble with some of the more leftish state conventions (Virginia.)
I guess what I’m suggesting is that this is a natural evolution of the original concepts of the CR. The NAMB wants to be directly involved in church planting to ensure that the churches that are planted are directly accountable to the BF&M 2000. I’ll add to your sense of bewilderment by my next point: I was a member at FBC Highland Village when Barry Fikes was pastor and prior to Matt being called. It was either dually aligned with the SBC and the CBF or on the cusp of that. The church today retains sole alignment with the SBC and with the BGCT (not the Southern Baptists of Texas) as well as with the Denton Baptist Association because–according to their website–the BGCT and DBA assisted in founding the pre-Village Church FBCHV. You could argue that Mark’s leadership is precisely what FBCHV needed. But it gets better: the two church plants–Cityview Church in Keller (NE Ft Worth area) and Providence Church in Frisco (between Dallas and Sherman)–both are also listed on the BGCT site. And they mention networks that include (not all at both sites) Acts 29, IX Marks, DBA, and BGCT. Neither Cityview nor Providence are searchable via the sbc.net churchsearch. What to make of that? The church picks the networks that it is most comfortable with based largely on who supported its founding. If you think that traditional, mainstream conservatives and Calvinistic Acts 29 folks are an odd couple, then imagine the BGCT with the Acts 29 congregations! The reason is that the network and the relationship matters greatly. (I’ll add that the parent for FBCHV–Lakeland in Lewisville–is singly aligned with SBT and the SBC.) I don’t think it’s convenient to expect that all of the churches will be as complicated as these are. But I don’t think it’s appropriate to expect the NAMB to be TOO rigid in how churches get planted through it UNLESS the supporters of the CR are satisfied with contributions continuing to “plateau” and perhaps the overall membership of the SBC continuing to “grow slowly”. If we CR supporters are fine with that, then the effort by the national convention to sort finely for doctrinal control will continue to produce the results nationally that it has produced since roughly 1979. And that isn’t a complaint. That’s just an observation. IF we, on the other hand, believe our Great Commission participation is being harmed… Read more »
Well, what do you mean ‘sideline’? The state conventions still spend about two thirds of every Cooperative Program dollar from the churches. For all the storm and fury about moving to a 50/50 split, very little has changed in denominational funding streams or allocations.
sideline with respect to this sentence and accomplishment of its full intention: “which aimed at using political power to control the national convention’s assets in an effort to control the doctrinal direction of the convention”.
I offer the following quote from Baptist Press’ article today on NAMB/State convention tension:
“California currently allocates 3.2 percent of its budget to church planting…”
If we want churches planted in that state….
OK, another quote:
“The second [Ohio Baptist state convention] resolution requested that NAMB trustees “continue their financial support of their missionaries in Ohio,” defining missionaries as associational directors of missions, Baptist Collegiate Ministry directors, employees of Ohio’s eight mission centers as well as church planters.”
Pikers. Here in Georgia we call every state convention employee a missionary.
I’m deep into a modest vent mode but the devaluing of the term “missionary” is one of my triggers…sorry
William,
If I am reading your comment with even the slightest of comprehension, I believe I am understanding what you have in mind to present. Yet, I do have a question about Associational Missionaries.
Do you not think they are missionaries? Or, at least should they not function as missionaries?
When we regionalized the Dakotas (before the GCR), the terminology of Regional Missionary and Area Missionary was used to refer to state staff and local associational staff respectively. After the GCR began to be implemented and the cuts started coming, we were informed that the Area Missionaries had to become Church Planting Catalysts in order to remain with NAMB funding and they would no longer be allowed to “help direct the work of the associations” or whatever the exact language was. Most of these men were lost during this transition phase (we now have one very faithful and hardworking CPC who is responsible for all of the Dakotas). Then they started trimming away funding for the Regional Missionaries (i.e. those with more statewide responsibilities who had been assigned to various regions throughout the two states.) In a little over a year, there will be just one of those fine men left standing for all of the Dakotas as well.
We do have more money for spending on church plants though.
Truth is LIFE as we knew it is no more.
Changes are happening and we were not quite ready for them. Never are it seems.
SIDE NOTE….I really enjoy the thoughtful post on this site and appreciate the format.
Being in a pioneer state conv. that will admit our conv. needed to make some healthy changes… I’m not sure we were ready to be weened off so fast. We were NAMB attics and this 12 step program is killing us or it seems. In truth we are much more of an association than conv. thus we feel some real pain at this point and don’t see real help coming anytime soon. Right or wrong many see ministry as money now days and many can’t see beyond that.
I’m hoping and praying for real solutions soon and real hearts wrapped around the Great Commission for the reason it was given and nothing more.
Only in SBC world could moving half of your resources to church planting make you a “single issue entity.”
They still do disaster relief and chaplaincy. (And probably a few other things I’m neglecting…)
I don’t think that NAMB (Ezell) is trying to be misleading in these videos, nor do I think that individual state convention execs are trying to misrepresent what NAMB is doing. I really believe each side’s motives are pure, but that the situation is just more complex than can be fully explained in a couple of video blogs or a few state paper editorials. Just a couple of thoughts for consideration: It seems like this issue is complicated by the wide and variant use of some common terms, but with divergent definitions. “Missionary” for example, as William noted above, can mean one thing in one state convention, but something else in another, and something else further in Alpharetta. It also seems like the issue is complicated (and I don’t mean that pejoratively) by the fact that the cooperative agreements are employed by the different state conventions for very purposes. A pioneer state may have been using them to fully fund various staff positions while an “old guard” state may have been using them to supplement some positions while funding other initiatives, like church planting, for example. So in one state the reduced agreement very well means the loss of staff. In another it very well means the loss of a certain amount of control over church planting monies. In either case, it’s perfectly understandable that the state execs would expect a voice in the discussion, and that they would react to the perception of not having been granted that voice. And yet, it’s also perfectly reasonable that NAMB would look at the landscape and determine that significantly restructured cooperative agreements represent its best shot at long-term good stewardship of the CP money for which it is responsible. No one has used the word, but the “homogenization” of the agreements could, over time, help the average pew sitting, CP supporting, Southern Baptist actually understand what NAMB does and how NAMB works in conjunction with the state conventions. I’m still willing to give all parties the benefit of the doubt. For now. I am concerned, though, when I see a statistic like the one cited above where a “pioneer” state convention–with a full staff and a state Baptist college–in a state with ever-increasing population is allocating 3.2% for church planting. My concern isn’t the percentage per se. My concern is the extent to which some state conventions rely on the partnership agreements… Read more »
GREAT points. I think at the heart of this is cooperation… or the lack there of. There seems to be more individualized giving in the future and that’s most concerning. The undermining of cooperation is a major issue.
I’m trying to remember our structure. Cooperation…. associations existing to serve churches, then state conventions to serve associations and churches…. then entitiies to serve the before mentioned and then SBC to serve each and every level and insure we cooperate and work together to accomplish our goal of the Great Commission.
I know some well respected guys on both sides of the issues. My heart is heavy for sure. I keep reminding myself…. Unity becomes a result of OUR obedience to the call.
It would be more accurate to say that all of the autonomous parts of the SBC exist, always, to serve churches. State conventions don’t exist to serve associations, nor SBC entities to serve associations or state conventions, nor any other combination. All of the above serve the churches.
William,
I left you a question up somewhere around comment #41. Maybe you did not see it. If not, please read it and give me your thoughts.
Sorry, you have found me out…I don’t always read every one of these scintillating comments.
Your question: “Do you not think they are missionaries? Or, at least should they not function as missionaries?”
AM/DOMs in associations where I have every been in SC and GA have been, half a dozen men, have never been missionaries in any legitimate sense of the word nor have they functioned as missionaries. They have done some mission work but the jobs were administratively and pastorally oriented. This is quite normal in my experience.
I have know a couple of AM/DOMs in new work states who were indeed missionaries, pastors, and church planters all at the same time.
Since the terms “missionary” and “missions” are our main SBC money words, people being asked and expected to give to support them and it, it is not surprising that the terms have been devalued by overuse and overapplication. Here in GA a state convention employee who works with mature, established churches in a rather techincal ministry area and whose work is exclusively with church members is a “state missionary.” Makes no sense at all to me.
I think NAMB will continue to fund AM/DOM positions but have changed the title and job description to better reflect NAMB’s goals of church planting.
Sorry for the tardy answer. You are the last person I want to upset. ; )
I can speak to your guess about NAMB funding AM/DOM position. They don’t anymore. And it isn’t just about changing their names to CPC’s. The associations in the Dakotas got the “you’re going to have to do it yourself” speech close to a year ago and watched as all of the AM/DOM guys were called to move on.
William,
Thanks for your answer. I have heard that answer from many guys who have been involved for any length of time.
William, I do think that one part of our problem today is due to the lack of true missionary focus by guys in DOM positions. Maybe you or Dave or some guy who is part of the boss structure will do a post on DOMs. Might be interesting.
Dave and everyone:
I commend you for some very civil and helpful discussion. I’ve made some notes based on this thread for some questions Kevin can address the next time he does one of these. We have another scheduled for early May. We don’t expect that everyone will agree with every part of our strategy, but we at least hope to do a better job of communicating things and listening in the future. Posts like this really help us do that.
Thanks Mike for your gracefulness and concern! God Bless!
In regards to “under spends”, it is important to note that does not mean the states did not have a place to use those funds. What it means is that in many smaller conventions, you did not have the matching funds to “buy” the NAMB dollars. Example: NAMB has appropriated 1,000,000 for conventions X as matching funds. Convention X has an 80/20 split, which means in order to access all of those funds; Convention X has to come up with 200,000 from its own funds. If convention X only comes up with 100,000 in funds, it can only access 500,000 of those funds, thus leaving 500,000 as an under spend. In some cases in the past NAMB has allowed access to some of those funds on a special need basis otherwise they remain at NAMB. Under the new structure, what is being worked out is that now the states are being asked to move the % of matching funds up over the next number of years. For example, those who were at 80/20 split are being asked to move to a 65/35 or along those lines. The question is now, if you take the infrastructure money from the states, increase the matching part the state has to come up with, How do you think particularly smaller convention will be able to pick this up when many of them cannot come up with all the matching funds to begin with? NAMB could offer convention X above 2,000,000 and if they can still only come up with 100,000 as matching funds, what good will it do? Some other questions for your thoughts and comments…. How much is too much INFRASTRUCTURE? How much does your local church spend on infrastructure (Please include all Pastor’s salaries and compensation in the formula.)? With this % going to infrastructure, what size area does your ministry cover and is responsible for? What should be considered a missionary? If you are looking to the IMB as your example, be very careful (regional leaders were considered admin or state staff, under the last president and revamp of the IMB, these regional leaders were transitioned back to the status of “field missionary”. Also wives are considered missionaries). If only “church planters” are missionaries, what should everyone else who does the work of the ministry be called? What will be the new definition from NAMB as to what they call a… Read more »
WJ,
I think the points you raise about defining “missionary” illustrates what I said above about the complexity of the situation.
You’ve lost me on one of your arguments, though.
The comparison of fixed costs for a state convention and local church aren’t analagous because a local church and a state convention aren’t analagous. But this isn’t Ecclesiology 101, so for the sake of argument, if you’re aware of a church that is relying on its own tithes and offerings plus a percentage of other churches’ tithes and offerings to fund its infrastructure, please point it out. We’ll ask them your question above. (And I’d probably also suggest to them that it might be in the interest of good stewardship for them to consider reducing their infrastructure.)
As one who still gives both sides the benefit of the doubt and is praying for better communication (and fewer talking points?) to prevail, I don’t think you’re going to gain much traction, and could probably lose some, with that line of argument.
Stuart thanks for the response. To give you an illustration of where it might be analogous, would be many church plants. Unfortunately very few church plants in my neck of the woods start with only the tithes and offerings of those starting the congregation as its only source of funds. Therefore many church plants receive money from the local association, state, NAMB as well as sponsoring or partnering churches. One of the ways to plant churches now is to start with a team of people who go out to plant. When this is supported by other church(es) or entities, is this not the funding of infrastructure through other peoples tithes and offerings? Also in this category I would put any church now or in the past who has drawn assistance in any manner from NAMB, State, Association for projects, training or very existence. The point of my question in the original post was not to say church and assns., state conventions or SBC are the same. We heard two years ago in Dr. Akins statements that we need to get rid of “Bloated Bureaucracy”, I would like to simply hear from those on this blog about where they think that line is between having the infrastructure you need to operate and when it becomes “Bloated”. I do not mind anyone looking at all organizations as to where to cut fat, redundancy or outdated things but, where does it become so much cutting that it kills the organization it is trying to trim. I have had the opportunity though some of my secular employment to assist in a number of surgeries. It is a fine line the Doctor walks between cutting out broken or rotten parts and leaving the good parts in order to have maximum function and use. Wisdom comes in knowing just where to cut and how much to cut. Wisdom also come in planning where to cut instead of just grabbing a scalpel and start cutting. My desire is that not only NAMB would have wisdom to know where to cut the fat but that each and every SBC organization would examine itself and see where to cut the fat. I would also hope that all those who cry out to cut the fat, will continually look at where they are at in the local church to see ways in which they too can cut the fat to… Read more »
These are good questions.
Infrastructure: Should creating a traditional state convention structure be a priority? Executive director, assistant; assistant XDir, assistant; CFO, accountant; Men’s work, assistant; student work director, assistant…the list of centralized jobs is endless. Many would answer, ‘no’, it should not be a priority.
NAMB has maintained that they would like for more of their funding to get to the field, to church plants and planters. State conventions may still fund all their centralized HQ personnel they wish and for which they have funds.
It is quite natural in any organization but State conventions (and any other level in SBC life) know how to justify the money they spend. But if dollars are scarce, then I’d prefer for mine to go to higher priorities.
Bloated? That’s a snarl word and even Danny Akin dropped its use, but if one goes back and examines state conventions, particularly the legacy ones in the south, almost certainly one finds that during times when CP giving increased, states found ways to create more jobs and spend the increase. During the boom years beginning in the mid 1980s my state moved from keeping 50 percent of CP gifts to over sixty percent.
NAMB cannot tell states how much of their CP they can keep but NAMB can prioritize the spending of their money, Annie Armstrong and CP gifts, to better fulfill their goals and priorities.
And NAMB funds all or part of the cost of all Church Planter Catalyst positions outside the South. These are missionaries in any sense of the word.
William, thank you. Before I leave the word “bloated” alone, it was Dr. Akin who used it in the first place. If indeed he has stopped using it, I am glad. However, it is real easy to stop using it now after he has already said it. It might have gone a lot further in his original presentation if he had called on everyone to cut back so that more money can go to Church Planting and then followed up by saying specific way in which SEBTS is going to make cuts in order to fulfill that. Even to this day I have not heard from any of the seminary presidents on how they are going to trim their budgets other than out of necessity. Meanwhile they spend multi-millions of dollars on entrances, chapels, baptisteries. I know they will say, “no, CP dollars were spent on these projects”, is it the wisest use of funds if it is about reaching the world and not infrastructure? Dr. Ezell has said that he does not want NAMB to fund “infrastructure”. Can you share with me your definition of infrastructure? The reason I asked the question about, “How much is too much infrastructure?” is because while NAMB no longer wants to fund infrastructure, it requires an infrastructure in every state in which it works. What I mean by this is that within each state the following are needed when you receive NAMB funds: 1. You need someone to process the paperwork for all church planters receiving assistance. 2. You need someone to receive and follow-up on their monthly reports. 3. You need someone who serves to do evaluation on the progress of the work periodically and once again process the papers each year. 4. You need someone to receive the NAMB funds, process the checks for each planter or project, make sure checks are sent out in a timely manner, be accountable for auditing by NAMB and state auditors to make sure the funds are being spent as they should be… So the problem comes when they want to require all these things from the states but, do not want to make provision for it to be done. Let me give you an example of one of the states in the region in which I serve and ask you to give me some ideas on where they should cut more infrastructure and at… Read more »
Sorry, I don’t have a definition of a missionary and this discussion doesn’t hinge on any specific description. NAMB wants to put half of their budget into church plants. That is easier to evaluate.
If you would name the state, I could probably do a better job of responding.
State conventions may have all the infrastructure they can pay for and I will not complain. NAMB has a right to channel the mission funds Southern Baptists have entrusted to them in ways they think best suited to accomplish their goals.
A few thoughts about this:
1. NAMB doesn’t have any money; it directs the Lord’s money that comes from our churches.
2. In general, any local association or state convention should have only the local association or state convention that they can afford themselves. That’s what MY local association and MY state convention has to do. That’s the general ethic that EVERY local association or state convention should follow and expect. No SBC entitlement programs.
3. If outside sister churches should have the desire to assist local churches or state conventions other than their own (and they should…and ours does), then that money should be handled EXACTLY like church planting, in these respects:
a. The assistance should be TEMPORARY. No state convention or local association is entitled to live off of other areas forever.
b. The assistance should be TIED TO OBJECTIVES. Are the gifts being effective? If not, why? If not…and not for a long time…then something needs to be changed or the gifts need to end.
c. The assistance should build independence rather than dependence.
4. The allocation of money should take place according to national strategy. Local associations and state conventions get to decide how much centralization to have and what the strategy ought to be…WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.
Bart,
In light of your comments here (which I totally agree with – that’s like 2x recently brother; that may be a record for us!), I wonder if you might offer your thoughts about NAMB’s current Church Planting-focused strategy.
Do you agree with it, disagree with it, think it needs to be tweeked some, or think it needs to be tweeked quite a lot?
The reason why I ask it because you represent a younger but more traditional demographic that I don’t think we’ve heard from in this thread.
I beleive that most of those writing in this blog do not understand the concept of Baptist associaiton, nor even the need of State Convnetion. Somehow most of you seem to think that the only mssion for SBC, State Convnetions, and Baptist assocaitions is to start churches. The Great Commisionstates for us “to go and make disciples.” Often the Baptist Associaitons are the front line for providing training and resources to accomplish this. Most churches in the small town rural associations do not have the funding to send their members to either of the SBC teaining facilities and most ca nnot afford to send them to the State Convnetion training facilities. However, in most small town rural Baptist asociaitons some of the members are sent to State training seminars so that they may return and provide the same training at the local associaiton. To often, the mega-church pastors who have grouped together with some of the leaders of the Southern Baptist institutions have overlooked this.They beleive that since they do not need the State Convnetion or their local Baptist associaiton (becasue of their staff and finances) tha the other churches have no need of such. You speak of each providing their own finances. This was not an issue until the GCG. Now many of you redirect some, if not all, of your CP monies away from the general CP fund, but designate much of it to SBC institutions, therefore, extremely short changing the State Convnetion which does harm to the rural and small town churches. By the way Associaitonal “Missionaries” are just as much a missionary as one who supervise regional foreighn areas. We work to help provide minstry training, mission opportunities, start new churches, etc. Some refuse to recoginize this because they have their own agendas. Jus ta thought
“””I beleive that most of those writing in this blog do not understand the concept of Baptist associaiton, nor even the need of State Convnetion.”””
Perhaps, I don’t understand the concept of the State Convention–but I can at least spell it! (Just kiddeng).
I’ll bet my hat he was using some kind phone to do that.
Dave,
You are probably right — but aren’t you always?
Joe,
Just so you know, I somewhat agree with you about the need for something other than our “institutions” and other mission causes besides church planting.
I don’t agree we need to the State Conventions to do this. I think we could strengthen our Associations to provide the training we now receive primarily through the State.
I say, “Cut out the middle men (and women).”
I also like your insight in regard to mega-church pastors not needing the State and Association like smaller churches. I think that is right on. In fact, I had a professor point this out in college years ago when the mega-church movement was in its infancy.
I’m with you: don’t overlook the Associashun.
Joe,
You and I may disagree about how to measure the effectiveness of a state convention or local association. You may believe that my strategic ideas for reaching pioneer areas with the gospel are unlikely to succeed.
But I am not someone who “[does] not understand the concept of Baptist associaiton, nor even the need of State Convnetion [sic].”
Rather, what motivates my comments is the fact that this system of church leader training in pioneer areas that you have mentioned does not seem to be working very well, as measured by statistical change in pioneer areas. We’re pouring a lot of money down some black holes, never to be seen again, and we’re seeing very few souls saved and churches planted as return on the investment.
Not for our sake, but for the sake of the pioneer areas(!), we need to reconsider what we’re doing.
Also, I serve a 10% CP church with a wall full of Lottie and Annie awards, dating as recently as the most recent years. Broad-brush, emotion-based accusations do little to boost your credibility here, I think.
Bart your right about my emotion. I do have a passion for Baptist Association work and it upsetting when some just dismiss the need and ministry of the association only because God has blessed their church to an extent that they do not have to rely on the association for assistence. I guess that since you have now decided that my oppionions are not credibal that I am suppose to get out of your way and shut-up. However, like it or not I speak for many rural amd small churches as an associaiton director of missions. Our association is self-supporting. I am not against all the work of NAMB in the pioneer areas, however, though many of you disagree, the churches in the rural small towns still need assistance. Since NAMB is not helping it fall upon the State Conventions and associaitons. Most associaitons do not have the manpower to provide all the help and therefore there is a need for the help provided by the States. And as I reported earlier, the states are strugling to provide assistance since there is an effort to encourage the churches, through GCG, to funnell some of their mission contributions around the CP and give it to IMB, NAMB, or the seminary in which the pastor of the church graduated. I agree tha tthey have every right to do so. Maybe may emotional-based acusations (your words) may not be credibal, however, when our associaiton votes at the end of the month to encourage the churches to participate in the GCG and encourage them to give a certainh percentage of the ir CP straight to state mission to fill the that which is lost through the GCG of the churches giving to NAMB and IMB. Souls at home are just as inportant. The act of a whole associaiton may be credibal.
Joe, I think you are reading a lot into Bart’s words.
Yep, I think he is also.
Joe McGee,
Bart Barber is a definite supporter of the concept of local Baptist associations.
D.R.,
Ecclesiology is important to me. I love church planting. In a pioneer area, the evangelism I’m interested in is the evangelism that leads to church planting.
I harbor some strong reservations (which will come as no surprise to you) about the recurring theme of increasing coziness between NAMB and Acts 29. That’s really the only area of major concern I have with Ezell’s work.
But looking at the overall picture, and considering this touchy business of cooperative agreements with state conventions, I think that Ezell is to NAMB what hopefully some legislator someday will be with regard to US politics and Social Security: The guy bold enough to step on the third rail of SBC politics and fix a deeply flawed system.
“””NAMB doesn’t have any money; it directs the Lord’s money that comes from our churches.”””
I was told a few years ago that NAMB does have trust money and money that has come into its coffers from transfers and sales of lands, etc.
It’s in the mattress.
Actually, it’s not. NAMB reported a net loss of investment income in the 2011 annual report. Their funding is (round figures): Annie 50%, CP 40%, direct gifts, 10%. You can easily access these reports online.
In a boom year, NAMB may have significant investment income but that income may be restricted in its use. All of our entities have such things. There’s nothing much novel or nefarious in this.
When we speak of NAMB’s budget, we’re pretty much talking Annie and CP. The system of alloting small slices of that back to the states is a legacy system of the mid-twentieth century.
Bart,
Your suggestions are really good, yet I think they are overly idealistic. The cold hard reality of the situation at hand will prevent some of what you say from being workable in any near term.
In general, I agree with you, but I am fully aware that NAMB has succeeded in creating a plethora of associations and conventions (by planting churches in new work areas that formed them, or it might have been the other way around) that cannot pay their own way and won’t be able to in real terms for the foreseeable future. They can turn these folks loose and see if they survive or they can continue to support them and try and help them work toward independence. I would hope it would be the latter is the goal, but the real question becomes how to get from where we are now to where we want to be. The new strategy seems to be doing it by planting even more churches in these areas in hopes that this will sustain the associations and conventions that cannot sustain themselves at present. I am not confident that this will have the desired goal of making these entities self-sustaining.
So I agree with 3a, but the question comes in 3b. Who picks the objectives? Is it simply those who are supplying the money? How do we define effective? Is effectiveness reaching people? Planting churches? Becoming independent?
Speaking from a dependent area, do we desire to be independent? Yes. I am skeptical however that the current plans and the current implementations of them that I have seen are going to get us there.
Jeff, you said, “The new [NAMB] strategy seems to be doing it by planting even more churches in these areas in hopes that this will sustain the associations and conventions that cannot sustain themselves at present.”
Perhaps you didn’t exactly mean this but I’m one who is hoping that NAMB isn’t planting churches so that we can have healthy associations and state conventions. If we have healthy churches and they believe associations and state conventions are helpful to them, then great. The goals in SBC life have to be focused on the church, not the various levels of denominational life and it often looks to me as if the goal is the latter.
William, Agreed, and that is why I think it is a problem. I am basing what I said on my impressions and from conversations I have had. I am in a new work area (obviously) and what I articulated is probably stated more bluntly than it should have been, but it is what it is. I don’t think that is the way they would want to say it, but I am not feeling particularly PC at the moment. I grew up in Arkansas and the association that I was a part of there was one that was started by the churches and maintained by the churches. I would have to do some more research than what I have done to speak with authority on this, but some of the associations in this neck of the woods are less autonomous than we would like to think they are. For instance, when the DBC regionalized, there were talks of churches moving from one association to another (voluntarily of course) in order to be more closely aligned with the new regions. You can call these associations independent, but that is just semantics. I am in an association that could be called self-sustaining, but that is because we aren’t strong enough to do much of anything on our own with a total of 4 healthy churches and therefore don’t do much of anything. We are just coming out of a period in time where we ran completely out of money a couple of years ago because the association was making payments on a building that was part of a church plant that closed. Thankfully it sold and we are in the black again as an association and looking for ways to use our new-found resources wisely the next time around. Of course, we haven’t had a DOM or AM for years. We couldn’t afford one. When we did have someone serving in a minimal sense in that role all we were able to contribute was some of the money for his cell phone bill and I think part of his retirement contributions and we shared him with another association who did the same thing. We paid none of his salary as he was a NAMB missionary. Sorry to ramble, I am probably saying more than I need to at this point. Please note, I am not opposed to church planting. I am working within… Read more »
Jeff, Defining effectiveness and picking the objectives is, in my opinion, the primary job and raison d’être for the North American Mission Board. If they cannot define standards of effectiveness for pioneer area missions and set objectives for the expenditure of domestic missions dollars, then I say that we shut down the entire board and do domestic missions another way. If they can (in an ideal world) do these things, but are doing them in some demonstrably slovenly manner (because the present crop of employees is too lazy, perhaps, or just not bright enough), then I say that we fire the entire staff from top to bottom and start all over again with better folks. I don’t think that either is the case. I’m sure they’re not perfect. I’m sure that people will have opposing views of many of the decisions that they might make. But I do not see much evidence leading me to conclude that the personnel at state conventions or local associations have a dramatically better track record of success than NAMB has had. I think that there should be a national strategy for national money. You mentioned the problem that NAMB (née HMB) was responsible for setting up all of these state conventions in the first place, and now they’re getting ready to pull the rug out from under state conventions that cannot possibly support themselves. I reply thusly: 1. You’re right, and that’s a very tough decision. It is much like the decision, having started a church plant, to cut funding and let it die after it has floundered around for several years. It is hard to do, but sometimes it is necessary. Anyone who doesn’t grieve over such a possibility is heartless, but in some situations, anyone who doesn’t do it in spite of his grief is mindless. 2. Baptists have a long history (more than HALF of our history) in which most Baptist associations existed with no budget at all, to speak of. A Baptist association doesn’t have to have a headquarters. It really doesn’t even have to have an employee. It is a fellowship of sister churches, first and foremost, and can survive on those terms. I know, that would be quite an adjustment, but these are the kinds of adjustments being made even in the Bible Belt. Our local association in the DFW area, on the verge of bankruptcy, is having… Read more »
Bart, you said, “Baptists have a long history (more than HALF of our history) in which most Baptist associations existed with no budget at all, to speak of. A Baptist association doesn’t have to have a headquarters. It really doesn’t even have to have an employee. It is a fellowship of sister churches, first and foremost, and can survive on those terms.”
I’m no expert in associational history other than being my father’s son. Dad was one of the pioneers of Baptist work in Iowa, coming in 1960 (actually, the last week of 1959).
Was it not when Baptists began trying more seriously to move out of the original SBC states that the need for HMB/NAMB funding of such efforts became necessary?
The associations my churches were part of in FL and in VA were both self-funded. But in Iowa, an association may have 13 to 15 churches. Our entire state has only about 100 to 110 churches, most of which would be happy to have 50 people show up on Sunday.
Would I be right in assuming that your association in TX is significantly larger than our state convention?
Anyway, my point is that the funding of associations followed the effort to reach beyond the deep south.
Is that correct?
Dave,
That’s certainly the rationale. Furthermore, it is a rationale that I support. I want us to “[try] more seriously to move out of the original SBC states.” My support for changes comes not in spite of that desire, but BECAUSE of it.
When a church limits the time that it will give support to a church plant or makes other restrictions, it does so not out of greed or disinterest (for if it were greedy or disinterested, it wouldn’t have begun the effort to begin with), but because past experience has shown that long-term dependence breeds failure rather than success.
I’m in favor of MORE money going to Iowa than goes there now; I’m just in favor of LESS of it going through the channels that have become dependent upon it, because after decades of investment in Iowa through these channels, we have an entire state with only 100-110 churches, most of which would be happy to have 50 people show up on Sunday.
I doubt those statistics are the dream your dad had when he showed up in 1959.
No disagreement here. In fact, I got in trouble here in Iowa a couple of years ago for publicly stating that what we have been doing hasn’t been working.
In comment 40 above I referred to the BAptist Press article “NAMB addressing tensions regarding strategy”
I made a reference to a line in that article: “California currently allocates 3.2 percent of its budget to church planting…”
In case there was any doubt that the tension between state conventions and NAMB is mainly a battle for SBC public opinion, one might note that the CSBC has reacted to BP and BP has changed their story and added to that paragraph.
It now reads: “California currently allocates more than 30 percent of its budget to church planting, according to the convention’s chief financial officer. The convention gives 3.2 percent of its Cooperative Program dollars to church planters, which the convention’s Focus 21 Task Force had signaled a need to increase.”
The CSBC, like any good institution advocating for their budget, has to have a way to make this look better. They apparently do give only 3.2% of their CP dollars to church planters but they can claim their budget “allocates more than 30 percent of its budget to church planting.” That figure may be relevant or may not but someone in the CSBC certainly recognized that the 3.2% cannot stand alone. One would have to know what else the CSBC is tossing into that 30%.
Transparency and forthrightnees in financial matters is a continual problem in the SBC.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=37583
William,
Above you stated, “NAMB wants to put half of their budget into church plants. That is easier to evaluate. ”
Would you please share with me your opinion as to what would be included in this? Thanks.
The criticism from state conventions is about the $8 million that NAMB is shifting from legacy Cooperative Agreement funding of state conv. budgets to its Send North America budget. NAMB says that funding for Send North America will go directly to church plants and church planters.
I haven’t seen a detailed SNA budget. If NAMB claims that funds go to church planting and platners then I would have the expectation that the bulk of it would be to salaries and benefits for church planters and the Church Planting Catalysts positions. Some ancillary expenses involved in church plants would probably be legitimate in this also.
I’d bet that if you ask NAMB, they would give you an answer how they account for the claim of 42% of their budget going to plant churches.
One might ask the CSBC what they are putting into the 30% category of their budget that they claim is for “church planting.”
One of the things I liked about Kevin Ezell when he arrived at NAMB was his statement that NAMB needed honest metrics on how many churches are planted and how many of those planted are still operating after five years, ten years, etc.
Thanks for the continued dialogue William. When Dr. Ezell came to NAMB and began making some of the cuts he made. The savings were actually closer to 14 million. 8 million went into his “Send North America” imitative and 6 million went into reserves. I do not have a problem with NAMB having reserves, their trustees and financial officers need to determine at what levels these need to be at. IMB has reserves also that, as was stated to me some time back, “are large enough that if there was a worldwide disaster in which all missionaries needed to be brought back to the states, they have the funding to do so.” This is just to say not all the savings went into “Church Planting”. As to what NAMB considers in their “Church Planting” part of their budget (not just Send North America) that is a good question and I would not have an idea as to who to ask. Maybe Mike Ebert who is a spokesperson for NAMB could research and respond to that question or have Dr. Ezell respond in is next video segment. Using just the answer you gave as to CPC’s and Church Planters, where I live we would be in the neighborhood of 45% plus another 20 that goes to CP. I am away and do not have access to our exact percentages. In you final statement, you talk about the desire Dr. Ezell had for an “honest metric”. I believe most state conventions can tell you where their church plants are and how many did or did not survive the time frame you listed. The question is where they ever asked for this information before the statement was made? I also know that Barna has done some research into this area and has some of the numbers as to survivability. The numbers are not good and that is an area where we really need to figure out how to try and stop so many from failing. I personally do not believe more money is the answer. The reason I asked as to what you consider as a part of the Church Planting pie is that a lot of funds are sometimes spent in regards to a church plant that do not just go into the salary and benefits of the planter or CPC. There is building rental sometimes, planter training, and a host of… Read more »
Kind of amazing that Baptist Press would just re-write an important section of their article just based on a call from California’s CFO. I wish while they had the CFO on the phone they would have just asked how much of that 30 percent allocated actually makes it to a plant or planter. My guess is the great majority never makes its way out of the state office. I think that’s why NAMB is making these changes.
WJ, when you get to the “host of other things” that might be counted as church planting/planter expenses, I get a little nervous. I’ve seen too much clever accounting.
If both NAMB and the state conventions are open and transparent about where they are spending our money, we can all make our judgments about the propriety of such.
William, it is often the, “host of other things” that cause problems and become differences of opinions as to if it is “Church Planting” or not. That is why I was trying to find out what people’s ideas are on this. The reason I used such a broad term is that each plant is different in method and methodology. Some use attactional events, other mailers, outreach funds, literature… The hard part is figuring out where the line is and is it a hard line or a soft line. Currently in the budget that I referred to above, the CPC’s are not considered in the Church planting section of the budget which would reduce the total % of the church planting amount. When you take them out of the equation it would probably reduce the church planting part down to about 35-40% of the budget.
I like your statement, “If both NAMB and the state conventions are open and transparent about where they are spending our money”. When you continue, “we can all make our judgments about the propriety of such,” that becomes difficult as each person in the convention has just a little bit different definition of what is the proper use of funds and what is not. If there was more openness and trust on both sides of the equation maybe there would not be so much skepticism on both sides.
Here’s a quote about church planting and funding:
“While the C[alifornia] S[outhern] B[aptist] C[onvention] does many good things, the urgency of reaching more people with the gospel in California demands prioritization of church planting. Currently,
$130,311 of California Cooperative Program funds are budgeted directly for funding church planters. This is about 3.2% of the in state portion of the CSBC Cooperative Program budget. Future CSBC budget allocations must reflect this commitment by significantly increasing California funds devoted to this task. Care must be taken so these additional funds are spent in the field supporting church plants and planters, rather than administrating church planting. (Emphasis mine)
This is a quote from the CSBC study document, “Focus 21 Task Force Report” of last October. If the CSBC has looked at their spending and concluded thus, perhaps NAMB isn’t the problem there.
I cannot speak with any knoledge on CSBC other than what has been written. On the other hand, the very fact the California did a study (on its own) and came to these conclusions shows at the very least a desire (on the part of the task force) to do things better and move more money in the direction of direct church planting support. There was a report that came out that someone said the total number was more like 30%. My GUESS is when you take the 3.2 % of CP funds and combine them with the matching dollars from NAMB it would probably raise the total amount to about 1 million total. I do not know what CSBC’s matching percentage is.
Interesting dialogue here, gentlemen.
OK. I want to bounce a little something from a comment that Bart made above, but I figured I would just start it down here. He said that NAMB’s old plan didn’t work. I was digging through some of the file cabinets at the church to look for some answers to questions that had come to my mind from our recent discussions. I came across a pamplet/promotional guide from 1982 for a thing called “Focus84” wherein they describe the goal to plant/start 84 new church-type missions by the end of 1984. This is for the old Northern Plains Baptist Convention, so it was a goal for all of Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. I can’t find any indications in it or elsewhere that the HMB was behind this in any direct way (even though I would have to assume that funds from there were being used for this), if someone can clarify on that please feel free to do so. Inside, it identifies 22 places where work had already been started as of that date in September 1982. There are none in ND at that time and I can’t speak for any of the works that are mentioned in WY or MT, but of the four listed in SD, none of them are around today. The list of target communities on the back is slightly more encouraging. It is a list of 162 places identified for a church/mission. Again I can’t speak for the other states, but I am familiar with ND and SD. I can say that about 1/3 of the listed places still have a church in that town some 30 years later. While for the SD list is is closer to 1/4 still around after all this time. Either of these proportions beat the 80% failure rate I have seen bandied about. Of course, I don’t have a detailed accounting of when those works were started and therefore can’t say that they were all started as part of this particular drive. I do know that works have been started in those areas between 1982 and 2003 when I first arrived in the Dakotas. So here is a question about how we are to judge our efforts. Can we call this successful? I have been reading around a bit too and found that one of the speculations as to why the old NAMB (HMB) strategy didn’t work was… Read more »
Jeff
I was involved in a church plant in Georgia during the late 80s through the early 90s. I received training and financial support from the Georgia Baptist Convnetion and my local Baptist associaition. I did not receive any support from the Home Mission Board (now NAMB) because I already had expereince. At that time they were only intrested in inexpereince men just coming out of seminary. I understood that they offer a good trainig program and even offer some (about $300.00 a month) for those who they accepted. I personally felt that they were making a mistake with their qualification. I found that I had to rely on my expereince, yet they penalized me for it. Go figure.