One man’s crusade to clean up the SBC is reporter Julie Roy’s podcast with SBC presidential candidate Randy Adams.
The interview is a roundup of the usual SBC suspects.
Adams is a heavy NAMB critic. Fine, we can disagree about church planting philosophy and spending policies. While NAMB has several recent incidents that have not helped, I still don’t favor the suggestion of returning to the good old days where NAMB would fling money at state conventions and the state conventions would do a stellar job of planting churches. Maybe he would address how NAMB could put over eight million dollars in a state over the past decade and the state convention could report only a net increase of single digits. Does that argue against his idea? Also, maybe he would address the propriety of a state convention unilaterally changing the Cooperative Program allocation plan, one that Southern Baptists put in place. I agree with him that NAMB should report and explain more of how they are spending our money. Some of NAMB’s difficulties are problematic. Some can and should be fixed.
The LifeWay mess. It is highly unusual for any denominational leader, and state convention CEOs are such, to criticize another SBC entity. Adams is unrestrained for the most part. Adams’ solution is to have trustee training and correct matters at that level. Generally agree with that. Not much else the SBC president can do other than to use his bully pulpit to call attention to these things.
Sex abuse database? It was not clear if Adams was calling specifically for the SBC to create this or not. His statement was that we ought to have a broader database that includes other religious bodies. Not much chance of that which gives him a good talking point without worrying about the details. We already have broad databases for convicted child sex abusers. Adding individuals to a national database when their actions are sinful but not criminal seems tricky. The subject of credibly accused abusers wasn’t brought up by the interviewer. Adams has assured himself of further questions on this.
The SBC has four candidates. Adams is the only one that might be called an outsider. Ordinarily, I’d be highly receptive to a reformer…but then there’s all that NAMB stuff.
I’d love to see Julie Roys or anyone else put the same questions to the other three. I appreciate Randy Adams speaking up on these issues. I wish she would refine and expand her questions a bit. A lot of this SBC stuff is very high weeds. I can’t imagine many people, including most SBC members, following along.
Reform the SBC? I’m a bit cynical…too much money to spread around for reform but I admire, ungrudgingly, Randy Adams’ speaking up on many of these matters.
_____________
The podcast lacks a transcript. I assume that will be added later.
I watched about an hour of the Baylor/SWBTS trial. I think I’m going to take a mental health day. We actually employed people like that? At a seminary where pastors, preachers of the eternal Gospel and examples of moral rectitude are trained?
Sounds like Randy has some great ideas for reforming the SBC. I hope that as he calls attention to these matters, the conversation will shift a bit from political and cultural hot buttons to the actual management concerns of our denomination. The topics may sound like “high weeds” to outsiders, but those who have been paying attention know that our convention could stand a heavy dose of accountability and transparency.
Agree completely
William,
This post and the one proceeding it seem to indicate that the President of the SBC would somehow be responsible for actual leadership (thus be able to reform it) but that is what the CEO is actually supposed to be doing. Maybe I am way out in the field here but would you or someone clarify the responsibilities of the two offices for us younger folks. From what I have observed the president is the figurehead and cannot actually do something except make public statements concerning SBC established positions.
Thank you
woody
Woody, you raise an excellent point. Technically, the President only presides two days per year. The rest of the time, Executive Committee CEO Ronnie Floyd is steering the ship. However, in terms of our entities, and the trustees who oversee their operations, the President does have a very significant role. He appoints the committee that appoints the committee that nominates our trustees, nearly all of whom will be elected. In this way, he can slowly influence the agenda. Also, he can call attention to matters he considers important through his writing, his speaking, and his interaction with the press.
I think the president could use his position to push for transparency (a forensic audit, for example). He couldn’t force other agencies to do so, but he sure could put some pressure on them from his position of influence.
I am a layman. I do not think that the issues that needed to be addressed are that complex or “inside baseball” stuff. Sadly the majority of SBC trust their local Pastors and that trust transfers to total SBC operations on the state and national level. Most SBC members would be bewildered and stunned to find out about the lack of financial sunshine. I have never heard of any SBC church who does not have business meetings and full disclosure on all finances. This is just plain arrogance and who cares about the “average” member of the SBC. If Randy Adams could get his platform out to the members he would win. I will be surprised if the SBC establishment does not win. The establishment wins in religious organizations, politics, government and Wall Street. We shall see if there is a populist uprising but it will be smothered by the it is just too complicated to explained to the people who pay the bills. How much reporting on the convention does the average attendee report back to his church? One indictor to me is Resolution 9, the hot button issue that most members have no clue about. I guess you can blame the members for being too trusting .
What Randy said in the interview makes a lot of sense to me.
The complaint has been about NAMB’s heavy handedness, lack of cooperation, turning back on historic partnerships, failure to be transparent, etc. etc.
Here are additional facts, some just reported:
These from Baptist press here.
I have noted several times previously that NAMB has invested over eight million dollars in the Alaska state convention since 2010. Net church growth is in single digits for the entire period.
Maybe there should be audits of what state conventions are doing with all these millions. I’m not presuming wrongdoing, just ineffectiveness.
What doesn’t make a lot of sense is pouring tens of millions into these states with so little to show for it. More on this later.
Hi William! I think these statistics are interesting. Where would you suggest would be the best place to learn more about the increase/decrease of member churches and their memberships (#s/locations/demographics/etc) for particular areas/states? I would love to look around just out of curiosity.
It can be done but is tedious. Go to https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/sbc-annuals/
You download the annual for the year and look up the table that has data by states. I keep a paper copy of some to avoid doing this every time.
William, did you see Randy Adams response to the Baptist press piece?
“@NAMB_SBC says in @BaptistPress they spent $16 million in the Northwest in last decade. Northwest gave over $15 million directly to SBC, plus $1.4 million to Gateway Seminary (plus free rent), and over $500,000 in EA IMB partnership in last decade. #Transparency. #Honesty #SBC21
Also, NAMB spends much of their money in the Northwest directly, not through the NWBC. Purchase of property, grants and gifts, even monthly allotments to church planters increasingly not done in cooperation with state convention.”
Also NAMB is showing a church growth to only 415, while NWBC’s numbers show a growth to 510 in 2019… Not sure why the disparity between the numbers.
Quick Google search shows NWBC numbers here: https://blackchristiannews.com/2019/12/northwest-baptist-convention-holds-annual-meeting/
I did see it. Doesn’t explain much. Certainly doesn’t explain the church numbers. Doesn’t cover what staff jobs namb covered during the period. Doesn’t explain the secret agreements namb used to have with state conventions.
If this is a war fought with factoids and press releases people will find what they want to find.
One might ask planters if they feel more valued now vs the earlier system.
I hope there will be more clarity coming out from both sides in coming days on how church plants are counted and the numbers. I think for most of the non south states they do not have any jointly funded staff left.
That is a great question, but I think the church planters responses might heavily depend on which planters and what church is their sponsor…
Have you ever read Spending God’s Money by Branson? Worth your time.
I read that when you were still in pull-ups. 😉
I’m not nearly that young. But thanks for believing so 🙂
There is a written transcript there now.
Sounds like Mr. Adams knows what he is talking about and has his information straight. So back when NAMB was “flinging money” at state conventions and they were directing how it was spent, mainly filtering it into associational missions, including paying some DOM salaries, the number of church plants was over 1500 per year. Now that it is consolidated at NAMB, and the decisions are being made there, and there is three times the amount of money being spent, the church plant number is 500.
So here’s a guy who serves in a state convention well outside the deep South with hands on knowledge and experience in what it takes to be successful in SBC church planting outside the deep South and who is willing to call out the self-dealing, the nepotism and the good ole boy, glad handing, back slapping and corrupt way the SBC has been operated for, well, for most of its existence. I would say Mr. Adams is clearly the best candidate for the SBC presidency.
And that’s exactly why he doesn’t stand a chance.
I don’t accept the post hoc/propter hoc argument about NAMB, the GCR. Adams has general complaints (“historic partnerships” etc), specific arguments (the SBC is in steep decline), and incidents (NAMB’s grants, LifeWay’s deal, etc.)
If the argument is that all the millions going to these three state conventions (NW, Alaska, CA) was effectively used prior to namb’s changing their policies, then I’m open to data that show it. Doesn’t look like paying a lot of salaries was accomplishing much in these areas.
I join Adams, you, and anyone else in calling for openness, transparency, self-dealing, and the like.
Actually, the SBC/NAMB never did plant 1500 churches per year. Yes, NAMB claimed/reported 1500 per year, but that was a counting illusion. In those years NAMB typically provided financial support to a church plant for three years. So, they counted/reported that church plant for all three years. So, the true number was about 500 per year.
There is now data that supports your claim. And the year Ezell took over and said church plants were in the 700s, was later adjusted back up into the 900s. I know several that said NAMB would accept their church plants, but said they could be resubmitted the next year… Which is not allowed or okay, because that would artificially inflate the number up again the next year. Also we used to not count satellite campuses and recently those have started counting as new church plants..
I know the anecdotal evidence of a few places that over counted, but nothing that would have added up to miscounting 700-1000 churches every year.
Not exactly. Never underestimate the ability of state conventions to finagle numbers. The goal is block grants, not church growth. We can have a discussion about spending policies. I’m perfectly comfortable with namb spending directly on planting. There’s no gospel rule that there even has to be 41 separate state conventions, each with staff, admin, real estate, etc. mid 20th century concept.
Not everything has to go back to 20th century strategies, but there is no data that shows the numbers were off by double or more. For that to be true and possible you have to assume the Christian leaders in 100+ separate organizations all over the country lied for decades… That also does not seem plausible.
I reject the presumption that the SBC decline began after the GCR and that earlier planting strategies were multiple times more successful than current. Everyone wins with stats. Lots of moving parts.
The only one that counts for some is anti-namb.
I had a boss that used to refer to such book work as using his magic pencil
Is that figure reported in the SBC annual NAMB church plants, or is that all the church plants in one year in the SBC? My home church was started by a church in the same association 45 miles away without a dime of NAMB or state convention money and with a bi-vocational pastor, not a trained church planter. That same church started another congregation the same way just after its tenth anniversary. How many of those 500 or so church plants were not NAMB or state convention funded? Just asking.
How biblical! Churches planting churches
So what if we applied the same strategy NAMB applies to church planting to NAMB or even the SBC as a whole?
For instance we need church plants instead of Church reform
Most days I think we need a new Convention plant
Most days I think we need a new mission board plant
By the philosophy of NAMB planting is easier than reform perhaps we need to pluck up the field get out the bottom plow and start with all the top heavy stuff turned over
This is just venting? You’re not clear. Most days I think the prime candidates for reform, at least performance audits, would be state conventions. That’s where most of the money stays.
I agree. I live in a legacy state and we still keep the overwhelming majority of the CP dollars. Given the chance to create from scratch no one would think this patchwork of entities and legacy spending would be a good idea. Most SBC churches still don’t know that 60% of their CP offerings stay right here in the state. Ten or twelve years ago, it took some strong action for my church to figure out where our CP dollars went. We were disappointed to say the least.
The easy access of sexual abusers within SBC churches is still a significant concern. The Caring Well Initiative is a start, but we need to keep our foot on the gas. If a data base (or any other preventative measure) helps protect victims in our churches we should go all in (Matthew 18:5-7).
I’ve yet to see a database proposal that would improve things in the SBC but I’m open to the case being made. It wasn’t clear if Adams favored the SBC creating our own database, nor any details of the same.
What is so sad is so many “Christian leaders” are more interested in their clicks and propping up their buddies and promoting their own agenda than they are in preaching the real gospel and protecting the sheep in our flocks.
I wish most of the issues of sexual abuse was from a well-disguised wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, but all too often the leadership KNOW that the guy has serious issues and they simply don’t care. It baffles me and saddens me.
My husband and I started one for all varieties of Baptists. It is unofficial and far from complete, but it’s something. Shame on the SBC for not doing this. If a husband and wife can take this risk, the mammoth SBC certainly can. The Catholic Church has done so with bishop accountability.
Baptistaccountability.org
I am aware of your database and have watched it develop from the start. I commend you for it.