There are two main targets in SBC life these days, Russell Moore and the ERLC and Kevin Ezell and the North American Mission Board. In regard to the latter, NAMB is incessantly criticized for their spending policies. A few observations:
NAMB designed and manages successful national SBC programs in the area of church planting and relief services. Critics would have Southern Baptists believe these are utter failures. The criticisms are often vicious and self-serving. Data used are often fuzzy or false. Numbers have been manipulated in regard to church planting for decades, particularly pre-Ezell. I’ve served in states where anecdotal evidence of funny church plant numbers was rampant. Some alleged plants were merely budget supplements to an established church. Some were grants to connected individuals more or less as a simple income infusion. Some were totally phantom plants. All current NAMB plants are connected to an established SBC church. Some succeed. Some fail. It’s a tough business.
Church planters, seems to me, feel highly valued these days. It hasn’t always been so. Here’s my executive summary of pre-SEND church planting philosophy: Here, potential planter, we’ll give you a little training and the toss you out where you think you can make it and give you three years of modest financial support. After that, you’re on your own. Going from memory, NAMB now has a planter sponsor system, a farm system of a sort for potential planters. NAMB has given grants to all planters to establish a retirement account, has given planters one-time supplements in times of need, has made it possible for planters in some high cost markets to have a decent place to live. Then there was the planter, some no-name, unconnected, selfless servant whose mortgage was paid off by NAMB. In the past, it was a part of the fabric of SBC life that planters would complain about the level of support. Anecdotal, but I don’t hear that at the same level today.
There’s a reason NAMB has these huge SEND rallies: Planters and churches are enthusiastic about the system. Contrast that with anything comparable in SBC life right now.
There’s a reason NAMB’s national Annie Armstrong offerings have been very strong: people believe in what they are doing
NAMB trustees know exactly what they are doing, something not evident in past years. My criticism of NAMB is that they aren’t doing a good enough job countering the loud voices of a few critics. NAMB trustees unanimously affirm cooperation, mission strategy of leadership. “NAMB is doing exactly what we’ve been assigned to do, and we are doing it with laser focus and with an incredibly high sense of stewardship for every penny that has been entrusted to NAMB.”
You’ve got to understand the code words of critics. NAMB has undermined and ignored “historic partnerships” and complain that “collaboration and harmony” are unknown these days. It is lamented that NAMB is slashing evangelism budgets in some states. “Reduced investments” by NAMB is states is ignoring the “context and cultures” of many states while implementing a “centralized structure” etc. etc. All these are code for this: NAMB is spending Southern Baptist churches gifts in ways they think is effective. The talk about cooperation and partnership is code for: “NAMB is no longer giving us money for centralized staff positions, buildings, and administrative support.”
The thrust of critics seems to be an all-out push to return to the status quo ante; that is, let’s fund staff in every place but not worry too much about effectiveness of efficiency in spending funds. As a result, non-performance was standardized and normalized. We have put millions in many areas for years where data show few or no additional believers or churches. Are we funding an evangelism staff positions or DOMs, or a state executives in pioneer states and have little to show for it after decades? Is it our de facto philosophy to claim as success the mere fact that we have paid staff in all these places?
SBC metrics have been declining for generations and this not as a result of the Great Commission Resurgence. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the motto of critics. They drown a few legitimate gripes with this tsunami about the GCR.
The SBC did vote overwhelmingly to adopt the GCR which gave NAMB the impetus and approval to spend and control their own money rather than throw it around all the state conventions. The convention can vote to undo it if they wish. Critics can gripe either way. No vote needed for that.
The mid-20th century strategy of establishing administrative structures, state conventions and DOMS in cookie cutter fashion all over North America doesn’t seem current with the times.
____________________
I’ll freely state here that all the individuals that serve in these outlying states are wonderful people.
Spending God’s Money: Extravagance and Misuse in the Name of Ministry, is the title of a 2007 book by former NAMB employee Mary Branson. It dealt with the pre-Ezell NAMB. So far as I know NAMB doesn’t pay for ice sculptures nor charter jets overseas to movies. I read the book when it came out. Gave it to a deacon in my church who was incensed about what NAMB was doing with our offerings.
The NAMB logo, seen in both the featured image for this article and at the top of the article, is the cleanest and best in the SBC. LifeWay seems to have knocked off Komatsu for their new logo. Above my pay grade.
There have been loud calls for a “forensic audit” for NAMB and other SBC entities. I suggest that we start with state conventions for forensic audits. That’s where the money is. My state did an audit, not a forensic audit, just a regular one. Here is what they found: “…longstanding practice of consistent cash overspend for non-budgeted items.” It was ugly but that’s the way we did things here in the Peach State.
Can you please explain to me why NAMB supports Echo Church’s church plant residency program when Echo Church has several women on staff who are pastors?
Can you explain to me why NAMB planted a church in Florida called 1 Name Church that had a woman as co-pastor and then dropped out of the SBC when they were challenged over that?
There’s been some chatter over this on Tom Aschol’s Twitter feed.
NAMB does not plant churches with female pastors. If churches have female pastors, their local association or their state convention should investigate and deal with the matter.
NAMB is not social media cops. We do not function as Facebook or Twitter Law Enforcement. What churches put on the internet is not controlled by NAMB.
(part 1)
I’m not talking about social media or any other website. I was looking into some issues regarding church revitalization. Our church has been considering a merger with a SEND church plant in our area that needs a building.
I was looking over the NAMB website. I found a list of recommended church plant residencies on the NAMB website. I was shocked to see Echo Church on the list of recommended residency programs on the NAMB website. Why? Echo church has multiple female pastors.
(part 2)
The business regarding 1 Name Church came from Tom Aschol’s Twitter feed. I don’t tweet but a pastor friend sent me the link. SEND helped plant that church and a woman is co-pastor. That matter was resolved when the church left the SBC.
None of this is social media fiction and I don’t expect NAMB to police social media.
But I do expect NAMB to quit dropping the ball and police itself.
Because of these issues (and a few others) our church will not be contributing to Annie Armstrong this year. When and if NAMB shows a better track record we’ll support them again. But right now, they aren’t being financially responsible with some of their funding and I see no excuse for it.
We didn’t drop the ball. We sanctioned a man to serve as a church planter. What happened afterwards was the work of the church plant leadership. We do not plant churches with female pastors or female co-pastors. You have the right not to fund NAMB if you please. However, we are financially responsible.
We are not trying to excuse anything. We are in adherence to our commission as mandated by the SBC.
That is an issue that their local association of churches or their state convention should investigate. As I stated earlier, NAMB does not plant churches led by female pastors. What those churches put up a identifiers on social media is not under our control. However, when it is brought to our attention, our recourse is to notify the state convention or maybe the local association to deal with the issue.
Echo is listed as an approved residency program on the NAMB website! Am I to believe NAMB isn’t responsible for their own content?
That does not mean that NAMB sanctioned or underwrote any female pastors.
Did/does the NAMB website declare that Echo Church is a church that has female pastors? The answer is “No.” You would get that information from the church’s website. NAMB does not troll websites.
The best thing for any Southern Baptist to do when we see these things is to make contact with the church’s association or state convention. They/one or the other/or both should deal with the church in question.
I’ve done that. Mike Ebert is looking into it.
But I still don’t understand why NAMB isn’t responsible for these issues. They should be. And we won’t be sending them a dime until they accept responsibility.
I understand to that the local association and state convention is responsible for disciplining the church. I’m not asking NAMB to do that. I’m asking NAMB to end it’s support of that residency program.
So,let’s see what he says. It’s an ongoing debate about the bfm and “pastor”. The article is regularly misquoted.
They have a woman listed as “Teaching Pastor”.
Bfm doesn’t mention “teaching pastor”.
A pastor is a pastor. You either are one or you aren’t.
Sez DE, not the BFM. You can deny that there is any ambiguity but that doesn’t, uh, clear things up. Discussion for another day.
Says the Bible. I don’t believe the BFM would contradict scripture. The Bible doesn’t apply subtitles. Pastor, Elder, Bishop… All men. Right? I believe the BFM agrees.
Right. So, we’re going after churches on the basis of vocabulary? On the basis of approved vocabulary but objectionable job description. The SBC has repeatedly proven only some errors are actionable.
You don’t see how training church planters at a church that applies the title “pastor” to a woman might be confusing for young impressionable folks who are going out to start a new church, regardless of job description?
As you say, we’re kind of getting into a different discussion here. I’ll leave it at that for now.
You’ll have to show that namb is secretly training planters to go against the bfm. All namb plants and planters have to agree with the bfm, contribute to the cp, abstain from alcohol (planters), etc. Critics have assailed namb for years. Usually they find one or two outlier planters or churches and present those as normal, as if there’s a formal plan.
But, go knock some heads together if it makes the old coach feel,better.
I had a very gracious call from Mike Ebert (VP NAMB) this morning.
I’ll paraphrase as best I can but he admits there have recent isolated issues. It seems there have been three recent cases where NAMB church planters have planted churches with women pastors. In each case the male lead pastor basically said I’ve changed my mind in regard to complementarianism. In other words, the didn’t keep their agreement. In only one of those cases did the planter agree to give back some of the money they had received.
I understand how that’s not NAMB’s fault.
In regard to Echo Church’s residency program, Mike said both he and president Ezell wanted to address that issue with the trustees. He seemed to have reasonable concern over the matter but felt that since the church was in good standing with their Association, State Convention, and the SBC that they were basically tied.They can’t address the issue without running counter to the other entities.
I’m grateful for Brother Mike’s clarity and straightforwardness.
Good. That is how these things should be handled.
All namb plants and planters are required to agree with the BFM. One of your gripes has been handled. The other I’m not familiar with but congratulations on finding the usual anti namb sites. People that are anti namb will always find sufficient reasons for their views.
Not sure what site you might think I’ve found. The only sites I frequent are Baptist Press and Baptist and Reflector.
I come here every few months or so to refuel any negativity I feel for the SBC. That’s about all the internet time I can afford.
Once in awhile I do read Baptist News Global when I’m really in the mood to get fired up. But this site is usually enough.
Why not have forensic audits of ALL agencies and ALL state conventions. I hope all is above board. I fear that if it is, it’s not OPEN and above board. The best way to stop the divisive rhetoric is to get the truth out there.
Complaint by DE above has nothing to do with any financial audit. The idea of a forensic audit is puzzling. Don’t know why the adjective is bandied about by Adams in his campaign stump speeches. I’m all for greater transparency.
(Part 1) Joe, NAMB is the only SBC entity that has a full time internal auditor who works directly for the Board of Trustees and reports to them. NAMB has an annual external audit conducted by the foremost non-profit CPA firm in the nation. There is more transparency and accountability at NAMB in this respect than at any other entity.
(Part 2) That’s not throwing any of them under the bus or accusing them of malfeasance, it’s simply responding to the oft-repeated criticism that “there’s something foul in the state of Alpharetta” (with all apologies to the Bard).
Thanks for the information, Pastor Henry. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.
That is a verifiable fact.
Thanks for these facts. Roy Henry is a NAMB trustee from a state outside the deep south.
A forensic audit is used when there is likelihood of he results being used in court. Forensic audits are to detect and prove fraud, corruption and misappropriation of funds. Are there specific, credible allegations or just suggestions for a fishing expedition?
Or do people just like how “forensic audit” sounds intimidating?
I don’t know the thought processes of those who employ the terms. My guess is that it sounds grave, serious, and important which makes the speaker seem to have more heft. No accusation of crimes have been made.
Thanks William. Really good work on this. I hear the critics in comments sections and sometimes on social media and often find a lot of reason for skepticism of their claims. But rarely do I see someone lay out a positive case so I think this is really helpful.
The Send Network is incredible. Dr. Ezell is a spiritual father to hundreds (maybe thousands) of young pastors/planters in the SBC because of the way he loves, leads, challenges, and encourages us. I am a church planter, and I love the Send Network. I believe it’s the best thing the SBC has going! Thank you for writing this article. As a planter, I sincerely appreciate it!
As a guy who planted thru NAMB in the early 2000s I can’t say enough about the positive improvements that Ezell has made at NAMB. Planters have real support and training and the resources to succeed. The complaints are not echoed by those of us who planted under the old system.