Some say yes. You can easily find that assertion elsewhere. I don’t judge our second largest entity, the North American Mission Board, nor their leadership to be perfect but have come to regard their work as effective and worthy of the support of SBC churches, pastors, and laypeople.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the SBC so motivated the institution through the Great Commission Task Force and Report to take control of their budget and be more effective in North American missions. My lay understanding of processes and actions is informed by several years of observations and unsophisticated analyses. In short, I think NAMB is attempting to show some progress particularly in the planting of churches. Their work has been effective in my view.
The complaint is that NAMB has been overly harsh in dealing with some state conventions and their executives. NAMB is given tens of millions each year to do their job. If they shuffle those millions off to the states that’s fine. Let’s just see some results. I trust their leadership make good decisions and their trustees to pay attention and provide proper scrutiny and policy oversight.
In the latest complaint about NAMB being heavyhanded with some state conventions these five state conventions are mentioned specifically: Alaska, Maryland/Delaware, Michigan, Northwest, and West Virginia. A quick look at the past thirteen years in these states reveals this:
Alaska: added churches over this period at about a single church per year.
Maryland/Delaware: Increased the number of churches by about 176 over the period, 147 since 2010. I don’t have all the data at hand but it looks to me like about 2/3 or more of the increases came during the tenure of the current NAMB leader.
Michigan: Lost churches during the period.
Northwest: Added churches at about 1% per year.
West Virginia: Increased church numbers by about 2% per year, a creditable number.
Over the years, I’ve led or been with group in Alaska and Michigan and worked with some very fine people. I have no opinion about pastors, associational missionaries, or state staff in any of these states and assume all of good people; however, if we are pouring millions of missions dollars here or anywhere, there ought to be accountability, including accountability in regard to results. If past plans for staffing, church planting, and growth has not yielded results then perhaps a new plan should be employed.
One axiom in Southern Baptist life is that everyone protects their position and budget. We should expect a bit of pushback when the systems and protocols are changed where there are budgetary winners and losers.
NAMB just reported a record Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions. Southern Baptists, SBC pastors and churches voted affirmatively on NAMB’s work. Those who think NAMB is awry must have successfully stifled some unpleasant memories of not one but two major meltdowns in the past 11 years. NAMB is fortunate, blessed if you are spiritual, to have righted the ship.
It’s a pleasant and positive reality of our time that ordinary hackers and plodders in the SBC have the ability and the apparatus to discuss issues that concern us. The day of an oligarchy of SBC worthies keeping important matters close at hand and dispensing only what they want the SBC nobodies is past. Those of the latter group who raise concerns and ask questions should have them answered.
__________
And in 3, 2, 1, we will hear from someone with the initials of RP on this one.
NAMB controls about one third of our budget here in Md/Del convention. The NAMB Cooperative Agreement reminds BCMD of NAMB’s ability to end the incoming funds for various reasons at almost any time …some are quite petty. I served on the GMB of the BCMD for 4 years. I became so tired of seeing people “appearing” to bow to the authority of NAMB so as not to endanger the funding …it seened to me to be about not offending NAMB. The last straw for me was being told that “I should stop biting the hand that feeds me”. The context was NAMB.
I just sent in my resignation.
I’ve been a SBC pastor at the same church for 33 years. We are now funding our own mission work in 3 countries…bypassing most of CP and state convention causes and just giving directly to the IMB. It’s time SBC churches stopped paying the big salaries to bureaucrats who live in gated communities. I wish I had never accepted the invitation to be a General Mission Board member. The SBC has many wonderful people and lofty biblical goals. However, it’s run by high paid bureaucrats who are mostly out of touch with the churches. Ignorance is bliss.
Mark,
Sounds like someone should look into this. If what you are saying is true, and I have no reason to believe you are making it up, then there appears to be a dynamic at work in which my Annie Armstrong donations may or may not be making their way to the people in your state reaching the lost for Jesus.
It sounds like there might be a snag in the system somewhere, like you have to do things the way someone outside your state is demanding that you to do them, or you will not receive the funding that Southern Baptists want you to have, regardless of your specific missionary strategy.
It sounds like someone should definitely call for an investigation into this matter.
This is a topic I started. My feeling is, generally, that it is good for folks to offer their opinions and perspectives even if I disagree or don’t like them. A comment from a pastor in the state, first hand, indicates his personal dissatisfaction. Fine.
But if a strident and prejudiced NAMB opponent like Rick Patrick reads into it that “there appears to be a dynamic at work in which my Annie Armstrong donations may or may not be making their way to the people in your state reaching the lost for Jesus” I’ll call foul on that but still let the comment stand, partly so that others can see the absurdity of it. Get some facts and then take as many shots as you want. It’s not news that some people dislike NAMB’s approach to funding and church planting.
Well, to clarify my “funding may or may not be reaching the state” comment, the handful of first-hand testimonies, similar to Mark’s, that were addressed in my recent article, indicate that the funding comes, but *only* if one is willing to submit to a Strategic Partnership Agreement written by and biased in favor of NAMB, which state leaders may not criticize due to their Confidentiality Agreements.
I cry foul at your “get some facts” comment. We have facts—first-hand witnesses like Mark. There is a growing perspective, not merely held by yours truly, that state conventions only get the SBC money we send in if they are willing to do everything the NAMB way. I want them to get it regardless of their missions philosophy.
The only point you have is that NAMB has agreements if they fund these state conventions. Not news. If you are the go-to guy for allegedly growing anti-NAMB sentiment then at some point I’d expect you to get some hard facts. You made a backhanded, unsupported assertion about Annie Armstrong money not reaching the mission fields. You can do better than that.
Rick has never really dealt in facts. His currency is innuendo, suspicion and unsubstantiated accusation. I long ago lost patience for it. He should go into politics where that kind of thing is de rigueur.
NAMB doesn’t fund state convention mission efforts. People in Southern Baptist Churches do. NAMB is the mailman, the “middle man” who receives the offerings and is expected to pass them along faithfully. When you follow the money trail, it’s not NAMB’s. It’s ours.
If they are putting needless restrictions on the state conventions, only sharing our money under certain conditions, then I have something to say about what those conditions should be. I am concerned that my donations are being used by NAMB to manipulate autonomous state conventions.
You may go ahead and have the last word about how bad I am. God knows my only concern is that these matters be openly transparent so that everyone knows what is going on, with no secret Confidentiality Agreements and no Strategic Partnership Agreements favoring one party over another.
Oh, save the victim stuff, Rick. I’m just blowing the whistle on you when necessary. I’m sure you’re a great guy.
Wait! Rick!
“you want them to get it regardless of their missions philosophy”
Really?
Are you SURE you mean that?
Fair enough, Tarheel. (By the way, we had a guest last Sunday who was a former Tarheel basketball player.)
To clarify my position, I am saying that I want state conventions to receive missions funding as long as they have a reasonable missions philosophy—even if it is not the one dictated to them by NAMB. I don’t want NAMB to withhold the funds just because the state executive might disagree with a provision or two in the Strategic Partnership Agreement.
And of course you would determine what is a “reasonable missions strategy”, I’m sure.
Rick,
Your outpacing my knowledge and personal experience.
It is true that I am
no longer a NAMB fan or supporter…. I see NAMB as an Association killer…I’m definitely against the petty things listed in our S.P.A. with NAMB. I certainly disagree with what I see as NAMB’s authoritarian manner with small state conventions who have made themselves dependent upon NAMB’s “generosity”. I definitely take issue with those who think that criticising NAMB’s policies is “biting the hand that feeds me”. NAMB does NOT feed me.
HOWEVER, I have no knowledge of anyone mishandling Annie funds. That’s beyond anything I know anything about. Just eanted to make that clear. Thanks.
My experience confirms that Rick Patrick is fairly well on target with his understanding S.P.A.’s
and Confidentiality Agreements with NAMB. I saw this clearly with an Exec. Dir./NAMB controversy in our St. Conv 2 yrs ago…very, very sad.
NAMB makes the rules.
It wasn’t always like that a decade or two ago. I am saddened to confess that I am persuaded that the best days of the SBC are in the past. Just my opinion based on my experience. Hope I’m wrong.
Mark Massey stated, ” I see NAMB as an Association killer.”
That may be a fair assessment. I know that one of the early things disposed of when Kevin Ezell became president of NAMB was the Associational Initiatives Department. I think that was an error and a definite lack of understanding Southern Baptist life on his part.
I know that NAMB ceased to support most if not all ministries in the Appalachian Mountains and there is no doubt that was a grievous error on the part of the administration. Pathetically so in my opinion.
It has been my experience that most associations rise and fall on their ability to demonstrate to churches that they are beneficial to the work of the churches.
I’ve seen and participated in very active and ministry centered associations and also ones that flop.
In my experience It also has a lot to do with how the pastors of the various churches love each other and are willing to partner in the gospel without jealousy and backbiting.
As pastors (corporately speaking) view the association – so do the churches and as the churches view the association – so goes the association.
I’ve not seen where NAMB is all that instrumental in either path (viewed as either beneficial or a waste) an association follows.
It was a strategic decision.
They analyzed the results they were getting from putting millions of dollars into associational missionaries can the numbers showed that it was not producing results.
I am not arguing for or against the NAMB policy. But I know why it was done. It wasn’t about a disdain for associations. It was a strategic decision that their mandate and their goal was to plant churches, not to fund the current bureaucracy. They did a lot of research and came to a thoughtfully rendered decision that church planting through associational missionaries was not cost-effective. Some were getting the job done, but many were not.
It has undoubtedly had negative impact on associations in the SBC and I regret that.
But I just wanted to explain what I know of the process behind that decision.
Basically, they chose to put all their eggs in the church planting basket and allow associations to fund themselves.
Mark,
What would you say and define that an Association is really supposed to do?