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 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.
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- of which there are none in West Virginia. They originally told them to plan over the next few years to do this. Then they said no, we will phase out over the next year. Then they said, no, you are out now. They called in Don Deel the very wonderful DOM for Mountain State Association and told him that he would now take early retirement. West Virginia was in shock. NAMB may have the money but who are they to tell an autonomous association that it no longer had a DOM. Mountain State picked up funding for Don and he continues today. Unfortunately, they were the only association who could afford to do that. So, the Executive Directer Terry Harper called a committee to see what could be done. They went back to NAMB and begged grace. NAMB pushed them- this is one side of this story- to come up with a new Church Planter Catalyst position. NAMB said they would pay for four and Terry talked them into five. They now have regional positions in the State in addition to the DOMs who even though they are not getting money from NAMB are still trying to keep the associations going. Terry Harper is a good man and was just trying to make lemonade out of lemons but many in the state are furious at him for this new state organization that bypasses the local associations. Well, the outcome was predictable. Cooperative program funds have been completely devastated as the associations have had to abruptly pull CP money from going to the state and keep it for themselves to keep their DOM’s going. Local pastors are pretty upset, believing that the SBC is behind all this, that it has become a denomination with a top down hierarchy and West Virginia their favorite whipping boy. It was hard for me to come up with any rational argument to deny this. What is going on in the other State Conventions? Has this happened anywhere else? Did anyone know this was happening? And, do we care?
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 planting.
On the other hand, we are going to have to, for the first time, be on our own. Maybe the push will do us good.
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 basically saying my WV friends are exactly right. If so, what future will we have?
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 mentors and need training for their people. One of the roles of a state convention is to coordinate those things. But is it a NAMB responsibility? Not if the strategy changes, I guess I would offer.
Bill Crews is the current executive at NWBC (odd switch there: Crews retired from GGBTS which led to Jeff being hired and then I think Jeff might have been instrumental in recommending Bill as interim executive director.) Dad’s concerns with the change in strategy were honestly a bit more on the political side than the strategy side, so I won’t get into them.
As I noted in my previous conversation on this topic: the FMB around the time Jerry Rankin and my dad were appointed was going through a cathartic moment that was re-emphasizing field evangelism (aka “church planting”). Dad doesn’t today think of himself as good at that, but I have fond memories if him returning from field work either in the (FMB-provided) minibus or on the (also FMB-provided) Vespa in Madiun, Indonesia.
I will offer that I never felt the Holy Spirit closer than when we my parents were on the ragged edge doing field work in Madiun. It is exhilarating to see the immediate results of church planting as the new plants form, norm, storm and perform (so to speak.) Every pastor should desire to see more plants and to participate in those via mentoring and training and spiritual support of the plant and of its leaders. Perhaps a DOM taking on a new plant would allow him or her to do that if they really don’t want the Catalyst role. Yes I know…that might not pay as well…
I just see all of this from a positive viewpoint because of my personal experience. Even though there have been personal impacts on me–light as it were since it mainly affects my parents–because of some of the changes, I am excited about the concepts. The impacts on people are important, though, and I think we ought to band together not to reverse the changes, but to discuss how to make it work. Might I suggest we begin with praying for the situation and that we would align our Convention and its entities with the good work God has prepared in advance for us and that neither our strategies nor our resistance to change would not stand in the way of accomplishing that work?
The California convention framed it as a rejection of cooperation because it was a unilateral change in my opinion. I suspect that there are Californian pastors that would agree with it, though, so the opinion might not be monolithic. Iowa is a bit more intimate as a state just due to geographic size and population on the other hand, and the impact might be felt a little more directly because of that.
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 “relevant” and necessary–having been WV SB.
This is the problem with all the changes–it appears to be “power-driven”–and those with the power are driving. The problem is: who really has the power.
I think we are going to find that out in the next few years–but it may be too late by then.
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 think Rankin (he’s the one who spoke of this as ‘entitlements’, not me) is justified in using the term.
If state conventions want to fund multiple positions in their central headquarters, they may. NAMB says they have a different strategy. If state conventions want to go to their churches and say that they need to keep 80% of the Cooperative Program dollar instead of 65% (the average across the SBC), then let’s see if they can sell that.
I cannot for the life of me see why Georgia, or Alabama, or Arkansas with thousands of SBC churches and hundreds of millions of dollars in offering receipts need any funding at all from NAMB.
The strategy NAMB has is sensible. What we have been doing is not.
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 the partnership.
This is especially true when the “Non-controlling partner” controls the money. Unless NAMB can find a new funding source, cutting off the DOM’s will–in my opinion–push SBC missions back down to the Associational level and NAMB will eventually become unnecessary (or even unwanted).
NAMB is moving too far and too fast and making all the wrong enemies when making these enemies is both unnecessary and unproductive.
I’ve spoken with Nostradamus and this is how we see it.
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 18 or so NAMB funded DOMS in Kansas/Nebraska and zero in Connecticut? Numerous ones in WV, a heavily SB churched state with a small population, and few or none in cities and non-Southern states with huge numbers of lost people.
But sure, state conventions and churches can keep their money close to home. Do we really think it makes sense that we give to the CP and Annie to fund VBS training in Arkansas?
Perhaps Dave could round up all the links to previous discussions on this.
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 money to the pie, this can be viewed as a zero sum game. Reach Pedro in the mission we’ve already started to invest our resources in here OR reach Seinfeld in New York by planting a church someone else is hoping to get off the ground. The thing is, we’ve already started this hispanic work, we’re personally invested, and it was not our decision to cut Pedro off. We didn’t really get to direct the flow of support which actually came from us. The logical solution, frankly, would be to reduce our NAMB support by an amount sufficient to cover the ministries that NAMB’s unilateral decisions have left unfunded.
If they are going to shift our mission support away from our missions, what choice do we have but to give our mission support to our missions directly, thus bypassing their new strategies since they would not listen to our need to continue the mission support so desperately needed here?
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 to be just as neutral as the BFM2000. The solution to the concerns I have raised is the creation of a J316 Network planting exclusively Non-Calvinist churches just like A29 plants exclusively Calvinist ones. This would bring balance and offer all of our churches the option to work with theologically compatible networks.
The non-issue of non-issues is whether or not NAMB is planting churches who do not subscribe to BFM2000. I don’t believe they are, nor do I believe that they ever have. I simply believe that other church planting networks have partnered with individual Southern Baptist church plants and placed a soteriologically exclusive requirement upon all their church planters that goes beyond the BFM2000 in a direction favoring Calvinism, which can be balanced, again, by the creation of a J316 Network with the alternative soteriologically exlusive requirement.
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 WAY to make things fair. The creation of a J316 Network would bring balance to the force. Then churches who want to support Non-Calvinist planters would have the same opportunities that churches today have who want to support Calvinist planters.
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” then I think you’d be creating an unnecessary overhead. And you would actually be making A29 and J316 ultimate and the the CP and SBC penultimate.
So I’d be okay with a J316 network but it needs to be independent of the SBC and the CP.
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 the business man looking to make a living or venture are in excess. Or the financially happy minister learns they must adjust or find their funding from another source.
Now, I’ve moved away from the topic at hand.
Overall, I’m happy to read these kinds of guidelines are surfacing. It is a good day to be a Southern Baptist!
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 entire body of Christ working together to fulfill the great commission, that’s why I am sending you this e-mail. We need someone who wants to plant sister churches in Ethiopia and serving the people of God by giving training, and held conference. If you want partnering with us please contact me: KEFELEGN SAHLE, P.O BOX 260, ZEWAY, ETHIOPIA, kefelegns@yahoo.com , hhpkefelegn@gmail.com , Tel: (251)912189048.
In His Service
Kefelegn Sahle