The SBC Plodder cuts through the chatter and gets to the heart of things!
Our North American Mission Board has endured considerable criticism for supporting church plants that also have a relationship with some church planting network. We are regularly treated to considerable, breathless, blogging acrimony alleging all manner of things about NAMB and other church planting networks.
No matter that there have been few concrete examples offered of such things. But then facts usually don’t slow down bloggers from displaying a good dose of denominational indignation. NAMB has consistently stated that they only plant churches that conform to the Baptist Faith and Message Statement. No one I know has pointed to a single church that does not so conform.
Understanding the scrutiny of such things, NAMB trustees adopted some guidelines for their church plants and other networks.
NAMB’s document is below:
NAMB / Network Guidelines
The North American Mission Board encourages church plants to partner with their association, state convention, NAMB and the IMB. NAMB also affirms that some churches engage with other networks for mission and evangelism purposes in accordance with article 14 “Cooperation” of the Baptist Faith and Message.
NAMB does not affirm or partner with individual networks, but partners with Baptist Faith and Message affirming churches and planters.
In order to be good stewards of Southern Baptist resources and remain focused on our mission, the following guidelines must be upheld in order for a church plant to receive benefits from the Send North America church planting strategy. Church planting is a family activity, and we want to partner with those whose plans and commitments include
a commitment to the SBC family.
As such, we require that churches we support:
1. AFFIRM their doctrine, polity and practices are compatible with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
2. PARTICIPATE as an SBC church, and have their denominational commitment reflected in their documents, web page, and shared with the congregation.
3. COMPLETE and remain faithful to all the Send North America strategy requirements and policies.
4. GIVE faithfully the agreed percentage through the Cooperative Program.
5. COMMIT to serve as a faithful SBC partner beyond receiving support in order to partner with the future strategy of Send North America in planting additional churches.
Serious, reasonable, and sensible Southern Baptists (I recall state convention presidents, DOM, along with your ordinary blogger types) have raised questions about NAMB church plants and church planting networks. There are questions to be asked and discussions to be had on the matter. NAMB trustees felt the need to respond put this policy in place.
It seems to me that discussions around Acts29 and NAMB revolve around casual presumptions and potential problems rather than real problems. I want NAMB to plant SBC churches. When I’ve raised the question about this with NAMB people, the response has been that they only plant churches that conform to the BFM.
I have yet to see anything to dispute this.
For what its worth, William, your insight and perspective on all of this has influenced my view of NAMB and its workings.
Wait for it…
Dave occasionally sees something on my blog that he would like to ‘grab’ and use. We negotiate a fair price (it’s always come out to be he gets it for free) and he uses it. If I had time I would have edited the above, at least to add a paragraph or two without the edgy humor. So, please append this to the end: Serious, reasonable, and sensible Southern Baptists (I recall state convention presidents, DOM, along with your ordinary blogger types) have raised questions about NAMB church plants and church planting networks. There are questions to be asked and… Read more »
I made the edit you requested.
I like most of this.
But I don’t know what 4 means. Help? What is the “agreed upon percentage?”
2, if interpreted too strictly, could be a problem. Shared with the congregation? Absolutely! It should be somewhere in the literature regarding the church, but where and whether it has to be on a webpage, those decisions should rest with the church. Our church does that. But I would not mandate that every church put that on their webpage.
Louis, NAMB already requires some CP percentage. I don’t recall what it is. The identity matter is one of the issues that has caused some friction. If SBCers are funding church plants we want them to identify themselves with us. Makes sense and is a good policy.
I think some people won’t be happy until at least two more clauses are added:
1) the church plant will keep giving to the CP until they’ve given 110% of what has been invested in them or they close their doors for good.
2) the church will not partner with any groups that identify with or are commonly identified as Reformed/Calvinistic.
I don’t think that the first concept there is completely bad. I have heard that there is a problem at times with churches ceasing their CP giving as soon as the CGA is over.
I would not be opposed to an agreement (unenforceable, I suppose) that churches would agree to give 6% or more to the CP for 5 years, or 10 years, or something like that.
I don’t think that is such a bad idea.
Agreed.
Dave, I think a time line is a fair idea. I have seen many NAMB appointed church planters in my years in Idaho who give to the CP as long as it is required to receive funding and then as soon as that funding is gone so is their giving to most things SBC. By that time they are generally constituted churches where accountability and ideas of cooperating seems only a thing of the past.
I’m down with that :o)
I like idea #1 and if #2 is important, then why not a #3 that states… “will not partner with any groups that identify with or are commonly identified as Arminianism, Landmark, Missionary, Wesley, Church of Christ etc…
Does anyone know what restrictions have been removed from the namb president, who earns more and more of my respect and admiration the more I hear of what’s going on there now?
This is in the BP article reporting on the trustee meeting. The former NAMB CEO was under some structured management guidelines. Obviously, the present CEO has the confidence of the trustees and this structure is not necessary.
BP said: — “Trustees voted to remove travel limits and quarterly evaluation reports that had been placed on the NAMB president during previous administrations.”
William,
Those were the restrictions the Trustees placed on Bob Reccord. They did not remove them when Geoff Hammond came on board. It is amazing the trustees remove the restrictions on Ezzell, at the same point in time that they removed the former Prez.
The difficulties of the two former CEOs are well known. The most recent precipitated the quarterly evaluations, I believe.
This may not be the comment thread for this but I have been seriously grieved ever since I visited my beloved state of West Virginia last month. I have heard nothing in the blogging world about this, nor have I heard anything on the road as I have traveled from Arkansas to Louisiana to Georgia and up through the Carolinas to Virginia visiting friends and speaking at many churches. But West Virginia is in pain. Last year NAMB came to the DOM’s and told them they would all be defunded as they were to put their resources into mega cities-… Read more »
NAMB has decided that they are no longer going to be in the business of funding DOMs. Iowa has had 5 DOMs funded by NAMB for a long time. They are completely doing away with the positon and reducing us to 3 positions. Our staff once included an exec, an assistant exec, a SS/Lifeway guy, an evangelism guy, a youth consultant, several office admins/clerical and 5 DOMs. Now, NAMB will fund 3 positions, as I understand it. NAMB is not going to fund any evangelistic ministries, social ministries, church-strengthening, associational or anything else, unless it is directly related to church… Read more »
Basically, NAMB once funding the state staff and admin for the Baptist Convention of Iowa. They aren’t going to do that anymore. They are just going to fund church planters and church plants.
Whether that is good or bad is certainly an item of discussion around here.
I am not against the strategy- something has to change- but to tell autonomous DOMs to retire and to say they have a few years and then backpedal to ‘Today’ seems unfair and very dangerous to the CP we are trying to save.
There has been some institutional instability at NAMB – they seem to be sort of feeling their way through all of these changes.
The same thing happened here. There are a couple of state staff/DOM positions in which retirement is near. They are not forcing them into retirement, but when they retire, the positions won’t be filled again.
Of course, our association is free to do as it pleases, but without funding from NAMB.
This is the SBC key issue du jour. Let’s be clear about autonomy in this. WV associations may have all the DOMs that they want. NAMB has no sayso on that. The same principle of autonomy gives NAMB the right to fund what they feel are priorities that fit with their mission and mandates from Southern Baptists. This includes shifting from funding general purpose DOMS to Church Planter Catalysts.
There is quite a bit out there on this including some here on SBCV.
Yep,
Strider – The report from West Virginia is not an anomaly. NAMB’s overall position, as noted by Dave, is to divert available funds to church planters and church plants. The California Southern Baptist Convention summarizes their experience with the new NAMB as follows:
“CSBC is now functioning in an unknown relationship with NAMB that, in many ways, has abandoned cooperation. The current relationship with NAMB is now a top-down decision-making relationship where NAMB dictates its mandates, strategy and financial support outside a formal, cooperative understanding of relationship.” http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/48/NAMBDocumentwithResponses030112.pdf
That’s true. Now, the question is – is this good or bad? Was the old system, where NAMB funded primarily the administrative structure of state conventions (especially outside the key SBC states) the right way to go.
Jerry Rankin had some strong opinions about them, and I think they have some merit.
http://therankinfile.com/2012/04/namb-deserves-support/
I agreed with Rankin’s article. My concern is that if NAMB appears to be ‘top down’ then we are ending cooperation altogether. Is that what we want? I am very concerned about how this is being done. I have WV friends who have always given 15 plus percent to the CP. They aren’t anymore. Their perspective is that NAMB will keep itself going with the mega-churches but that the SBC is no longer a place where West Virginia is welcome. Again, I tried to argue with them but I didn’t have any facts on my side. Dave and Max are… Read more »
Our Hispanic church plant was cut $11,000 by NAMB. Too bad they’re not in New York. Now, if we want to support this outstanding work like we always have, we’ll have to find the money somewhere. Maybe we’ll just send less to the people who reallocated our dinero without really asking.
Well…dad’s position with the Northwest Baptist Convention came to a similar conclusion and for pretty much the same strategic reasons. He retired and is now pastoring a struggling church in Vancouver, WA. And I think he’s enjoying it. He’s also finishing his DMin at the NWBC campus of GGBTS. If I recall correctly, Iorg hired him out of Hawaii and I know he mentioned that some of his support and interest came from churches outside of the SB sphere of influence while he did what I think of as general church consultancy work with the NWBC. Pastors and churches need… Read more »
Shall we say that the Calif. State BC is forever entitled to the same funding from NAMB? To the CSBC’s credit, they spoke frankly about the issues in the doc you linked, NAMB responded to each point, also in the doc.
The CSBC budget puts about three percent into funding church planting. NAMB has different priorities; hence, the change in funding formulas and allocations.
Make that “into funding church planters” rather than “planting”.
William, Nobody I know of in California (my state) made the claim we are entitled to anything. If you read the document and you speak with the men involved you will note that it is “the unilateral nature” of NAMB’s actions that are as problematic as any consequence. And, I think you point something out that is very important: if a group from Atlanta is perceived as “calling the shots” and determining the relative value of “Missions” (see article above West Virginia) one can expect a “territorial challenge.” I’m sure that West Virginia SB’s feel their mission to W.Va. is… Read more »
I don’t think it’s about power at all. NAMB has a strategy, Frank, and is spending money in accord with that strategy, which, incidentally is what the SBC recommended that they do. NAMB is shifting about $8 million of their $114 million budget to church planting. Everyone likes the status quo, especially if money is involved. I give your state convention CEO credit for being frank and open about the things. While I don’t expect any state executive to say they are ‘entitled’ to a steady stream of NAMB funding in the same ways they have always received it, I… Read more »
The amount of money (size of the pie) has not increased with NAMB’s new policies. If a part of that “pie” is defunded, then funds will be diverted to cover what those giving the money think is important, not what NAMB pontificates is important. My theory–and I am only prognosticating–is that this current NAMB defunding policy is ultimately not going to increase money for NAMB’S church planting efforts. It will, over time, decrease it. Missions will become more and more a “society” effort rather than a Cooperative Effort. You cannot have a partnership in which one side has controls unilaterally… Read more »
Yep. We’re off the A29 network stuff and onto NAMB’s spending… The Southern Baptist Convention, in session, recommended that NAMB put half it’s budget into church planting and that these legacy cooperative agreements with the states be ended. NAMB has a strategy – put money where there aren’t so many churches. Don’t pour money into state conventions with little rhyme and reason, which is how we got to the place that there are no NAMB funded planters in some states like Connecticut and dozens in places where there are far less people and far more churches. Can we really justify… Read more »
No one who knows anything about Southern Baptist work in WV can make the claim that we are “a heavily SB churched state.”
I haven’t spoken with Nostradamus, but I do think the new NAMB, in the case of our mainline state hispanic mission, is “robbing Pedro to pay Seinfeld” using money forwarded by our state to NAMB to do it. I heard a state worker today describe things this way: “There are 42 state conventions all working together to reach North America for Christ, but we are the ONLY convention tasked with reaching OUR STATE for Christ. We value our partnerships in reaching America, but we will not stop supporting the missions in our state.” Since SBC churches are not adding additional… Read more »
I see no problem with that Rick. Local spending doesn’t need to go to the national convention and arguably distorts the picture of CP giving when it does. Similarly, the national entity need not have the influence nor the control that is implied by funding a DOM in a local association whether or not it exercises that authority. I think this change is good though it IS a bit jarring.
Happier :o)
Dave,
Do you know where William was able to access these guidelines? I honestly cannot find them through the NAMB website.
No, I have no idea.
I emailed NAMB and asked.
William that is great. I left a voice message this afternoon and have not had a response yet. Also, the guidelines are not that bad. I believe they could use some improvement but overall I like them. Why would they not post these in a special article or something?
I feel sure that they will. The trustees just voted on them yesterday.
On the NAMB Guidelines, they look just fine as an official NAMB response since they would remain neutral toward any and all partnering networks that might themselves go beyond BFM2000 by requiring a soteriological exclusivity not found in our soteriologically neutral confessional statement. Thus, NAMB’s policies should easily accommodate not only the A29 Network but also any kind of J316 Network that might form to provide a counter balance for the soteriologically exclusive A29 Network in the other direction. The solution to the concerns I have raised previously has never been some kind of policy by NAMB. They have chosen… Read more »
What’s stopping you from starting one, Rick? Or is your real purpose to drum up opposition in order to get the NAMB to limit soteriological restrictions of partner networks if the plant also accepts NAMB support? Speak clearly if you don’t mind, please?
What’s stopping me from starting one? Let’s see, money, time, organization, contacts…but I think one eventually will form. Is my real purpose drumming opposition to whatever…? No sense questioning my motives, Greg. I don’t know how to be any more transparent. It’s not fair like it is. My goal is to provide fairness and balance in the planting of churches with regard to the currently controversial issue of Calvinism. While it is true that ANOTHER WAY to provide this balance would be for NAMB to refuse to plant churches who affiliate with soteriologically exclusive networks, it is not the ONLY… Read more »
My point is that a J316 network is a red herring. It doesn’t exist and you don’t intend to spend time bringing it to life. So your real intention is to get the NAMB to back away from the policy of allowing–essentially–an A29 thumb on the scale that points demographically towards a preponderance of Calvinistic plants.
I take from that you’re disappointed with the guidelines? And this kind of forum might be the right place to directly express that disappointment instead of, essentially, beating around the bush? Here’s the mic…
For crying out loud, stop putting words in my mouth. J316 is not a red herring. It’s a solution. Not the ONLY solution, but I’m not holding my breath for NAMB to refuse to co-sponsor with partners whose theology discriminates against some, but not all, Southern Baptist planters. So, we can solve the basic unfairness, which is absolutely my issue, another way.
By the way, eventually, something like a J316 will exist.
Let me add this: my dad hasn’t said this out loud, but he would be disappointed if such a demographic trend were to be instilled by simply not noticing it was possible. He’s not a Calvinist after all. I support where you’re coming from even if I am a Calvinist.
Rick, I wouldn’t be necessarily opposed to a J316 network. But I would say that it needs to be “supported” by NAMB in the same way that churches that affiliate with A29 do. NAMB does not plant Acts 29 churches. NAMB plants SBC churches that choose to affiliate with A29. If there were a J316 network then that same thing would need to happen. NAMB plants an SBC church that autonomously decides to affiliate with J316. But if you had a channel of giving to NAMB that said, “would you like this to go to J316 or A29 type plants”… Read more »
Agreed. It should mirror A29 in every way.
even the Calvinism? LOL.
* in every way “related to organizational structure.”
Where are the steadfast church planters and faithful churches? It’s likely this is too much of a generality, but it has become a rare thing to be partnered with church planters and new churches who are blessed with a cooperating spirit. Too many church planters and pastors are thinking like business men and less like loyal shepherds. A church planter/pastor and/or church that looks to a business model before the Lord will withdraw and withhold as soon as the financial agreement are finished or a mission board adjusts its spending and focus. Laborers in the field are indeed few, but… Read more »
While money is at the heart of need for all church planters, I think that each line item you add to the list is another hurdle or consideration a planter faces when aligning with the SBC. I’m reminded of Ed Stetzer who has been asked by several planters about partnering with the SBC. An alarming small percentage of those planters didn’t plant with the SBC. So, keep that in mind with every added line or additional requirement. We can be our own worst enemy.
Dear Christian Friends, Greetings,in the sweet name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is coming very soon, A lot of things are urgent, some things are important, but one is the top priority proclaiming Jesus to the un reached people of the world. There are so many vital things that contribute to helping, blessing, teaching and serving the body of Christ. However, if the church, the people of God forgets the great commission of Jesus to go in to the entire world and preach the gospel, we will miss our purpose to being in the earth. It will take the… Read more »