(William’s blog, the SBC Plodder, has had some insightful commentary on state and national entities and their spending priorities. Here is another entry from the Plodder questioning the questioners – those who are not happy with NAMB’s current spending priorities. Worth a read!)
The North American Mission Board is Southern Baptists’ second largest entity with a budget for 2012 of $115 million. NAMB gets the second largest slice of Cooperative Program money, about ten percent. Their annual mission offering, the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions, totaled over $56 million in 2011.
One wonders, just how do we expect NAMB to spend our money?
Were Southern Baptists satisfied with the spending under prior administrations which included overseas trips to movie premiers, ice sculptures for in house events, and millions in wasted money on programs now defunct?
Were Southern Baptists satisfied with centralizing spending in NAMB’s Alpharetta headquarters with hundreds of employees and paying millions in travel expenses?
Were Southern Baptists satisfied that NAMB in reaching North America for Christ, was spending only about twenty-eight cents on every budgetary dollar on church planting?
Are Southern Baptists displeased that headquarters employment and spending and travel expenses have been cut by many millions and that spending on church planting will consume forty-two cents on every 2012 budgetary dollar?
I hear a lot of general complaining about NAMB but I’d like to hear someone make the case made for the status quo ante at NAMB.
Aha, it’s about NAMB cutting funding to state conventions some say.
Fair enough. Can we talk data?
NAMB no longer pays insurance for positions they fund at less than a 50% level (although I understand that for some of these they have agreed to take several years to transition the ending of that funding). There are several positions that NAMB funds at a very insignificant sum, couple of hundred dollars a month, for which they have paid 100% of insurance costs.
Does anyone think it inappropriate that this system be ended?
NAMB has a policy that is reducing cooperative funding to the stronger state conventions and increasing funding in the weaker state conventions.
Do Southern Baptists think this is unwise or unfair?
A commenter here made the assertion that NAMB is “decimating” missions in the Colorado Baptist General Convention.
Really?
Well, not really, if funding is any measure of things, since NAMB has increased funding to Colorado by about one third for 2012. Other states may wish for NAMB to decimate missions in their state in this manner.
A popular blogger from New Mexico lamented NAMB’s cutting of mission funding for his state.
Really?
Well, really. NAMB has dropped their funding for New Mexico by about $222,000 for 2012, about a twenty percent cut.
Why?
Seems New Mexico is a pretty strong Southern Baptist state with well over 300 congregations serving a total population of right at two million. In fact, the case can be made from the data that New Mexico is a stronger Southern Baptist state than even Florida and than every other state outside the South except for Wyoming. NAMB has adjusted their funding based on parameters that make sense to me, although making sense isn’t always the measure in SBC funding issues.
I wish someone would make the case for NAMB spending our money differently and in doing so specifically address all of the above.
I’ve seen Kevin Ezell and, to make a wild conjecture, he doesn’t look like he can walk on water. I suppose he has made some mistakes at NAMB and perhaps some of the new NAMB policies are not wise, not workable, or appropriate.
Would some insightful SBCer please make the case for how NAMB can better spend our money.
The field for doing so is wide open. Have at it.
Doesn’t NAMB get about 22 or 23% of the CP pie?
Anyway, I think the thing a lot of us out here are asking for is a rejection of the cookie-cutter, do-the-same-thing-everywhere approach.
For instance, let Iowa Baptists decide how we can reach Iowa, then we start negotiating with NAMB. A true negotiation – give and take, discussion, etc.
Then, we come up with a PARTNERSHIP. Right now, there is no sense of partnership from state conventions with NAMB.
Agreed, Dave. We are admittedly in no position to make demands. It would be nice though to be dealt with in such a way that they show that they care about what we think nonetheless.
I meant that NAMB gets about ten cents on the CP dollar that comes from your church.
Dave,
Am I missing something? I’ve followed this discussion of NAMB’s “partnerships” and I see no mention of the Association at all.
Has the Association become a “step-child” in SBC life?
I see the Association as absolutely strategic, but not as an appendix on the digestive system of the State.
I’d be curious to know if you think it is even possible that the partnerships could be between NAMB and local Associations instead of the STate?
The idea of a “State-anything” in California seems like an oxymoron to me. At best we are like two separate states: Northern and Southern. I don’t see any logical reason to think that a “State” approach to missions in California would make sense, if for no other reason than the size of the State.
I guess I just keep coming back to the question: what can the State Conventions do that local churches cannot do better–especially in regard to church planting?
I will concede that if someone answers: Disaster Relief, I’d be hard-pressed to answer that charge. But, even disasters in California are not “State-wide” but localized, even including earthquakes.
How much money would be released for missions if NAMB worked directly with Associations who gathered churches together in a local region to co-sponsor church plants? I’m thinking millions of dollars could be diverted to church planting ministry alone.
One of the first things that happened during the initial GCR transitions in the Dakotas was that the men who were NAMB funded missionaries that also assisted our associations were told that they could no longer focus on associational work. They were to be transitioned to CPCs, but all but one of them ended up leaving their positions instead. We now have a single CPC for the entire Dakota convention. Based on the ratio that I saw in the CSBC document that William linked to, that is all we are likely to have in the long term. We currently have budgeted money for two other CPC positions but have had a hard time finding people for that position. I don’t know if the uncertainty involved in the current climate is part of the reason for that or not.
Our local associations here are at various levels of ability to conduct church planting or any ministry for that matter. The association that I am in here in our corner of ND is composed of 6 churches. We are just getting healthy again. I highly doubt NAMB would show much interest in working directly with us.
William,
Thankfully, New Mexico is a stronger state out west as far as the health of our Convention. I know that you applaud NAMB’s direction. If a commenter said that NAMB is “decimating” Colorado missions, it would not surprise me in the least. If the new NAMB wants to be a church planting network, then they are free to do that. The churches in the state conventions and the state conventions themselves are free and autonomous as well, much to the chargrin of some SBC leaders.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dave when he says that “there is no sense of partnership from state conventions with NAMB.” The problems with the new NAMB runs much deeper than what they are funding. It is the “how” that has been a major problem. Jeff hits the nail on the head when he says that it “would be nice though to be dealt with in such a way that they (NAMB leaders) show that they care about what we think nonetheless.” At least a half-hearted pretense of caring would be better than what it seems many state conventions have received from the new NAMB. Not to worry though. If things continue, NAMB will have far less of “our” money to spend to plant churches near cooperating churches in New Mexico and other states. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Since I haven’t sat in on any NAMB/state convention meetings, I have no idea what everyone’s state of mind has been but perhaps the new committee of state executives who are to deal with NAMB as a group will open those meetings so that the Southern Baptists who pay all of the bills will be able to listen and see what is said.
Howell, if your state or the stronger states take steps to (a) increase the CP percentages that they keep in-state, and/or (b) stop pushing the AAEO in favor of their own state mission offering, we will see how the churches respond to that. NAMB is operating (as are some state conventions) under the assumption that what the SBC wants is for states to keep less of the CP dollars.
Below is a document that takes the list of complaints about NAMB’s funding changes in California and addresses each one. The least that one can say about these debates is that there are two sides to each one. Let the reader decide which is the stronger and who is right.
http://www.arkansasbaptist.org/storage/docs/NAMB%20Strategic%20Shifts.pdf
William,
Just a note from a California Southern Baptist. The information in NAMB’s response is not exactly what it would seem on the surface. It could seem like there were some meetings with the State Executive in which these items were “negotiated.”
I’ve spoken with the State Executive of California, and the “agreement” did not come as a result of “negotiations.”
The charge of unilateral action on the part of NAMB do not appear to be illusory.
PS–In regard to “negotiations,” I’d like to say that the Executive Director of California would be very open to negotiations. I don’t always agree with how he goes about things, but he certainly is a humble, open-minded, big-hearted guy.
I would imagine that negotiating with the Executive Director of California would be a very pleasant and effective experience.
Some of NAMB’s responses to CSBC begin with “True” an acknowledgement of a unilateral change in funding and budgeting priorities. NAMB has adopted new priorities and are adjusting funding accordingly. The reader may decide if NAMB has the better argument here or not and Southern Baptists can decide if the changes make NAMB more effective in carrying out their mission. And wasn’t it Mohler who said prior to the GCR report being adopted that NAMB has to be able to control it’s own budget to be effective.
What you are reading through all this is state execs protecting their personnel, their state convention staffing, and their budgets. I think it safe to conclude that the CSBC doesn’t like NAMB spending NAMB’s money in California in ways that suit NAMB’s priorities rather than the CSBC’s. And it looks reasonable to conclude that the CSBC would prefer the status quo ante with NAMB.
One might read the CSBC’s statement about longstanding cooperative agreements and think “legacy funding”, money that has been given to the CSBC by NAMB and should continue to be given in more or less the same way.
And NAMB is saying that they are trying to “systematize” funding rationale and ratios, bringing the legacy, byzantine system of Cooperative Agreements, those secret agreements between NAMB and state conventions that I cannot get anyone to show me.
I am perfectly willing as a Southern Baptist to let NAMB try something different. This is a discussion worth having.
William,
In the end, state conventions will have to determine their own priorities as well. Where we can “partner” with NAMB, we will. Where we have different visions for how to do missions in NM — and I would trust NM Baptists (or CA or CO or Dakota Baptists) more to understand our own states than anyone at the new NAMB — we can partner together.
But, one way to eliminate the “Byzantine system of cooperative agreements” is for states to allow churches to decide how much of “our” CP money gets forwarded to NAMB. If NAMB continues down its present path, look for that simplified giving plan to be implemented sooner rather than later. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Ah, throwing down the gauntlet in sandy New Mexico are we? NAMB threatened with being ghettoized in BCNM’s giving system. That is certainly the prerogative of that autonomous state convention but NAMB receives bewteen six and seven cents of every CP dollar given in New Mexico, about a quarter million dollars.
There’s not a lot to work with there.
Add in BCNM churches Annie Armstrong offerings, which the BCNM can only impact indirectly and I’m guessing (don’t have AAEO figure for NM in front of me) the state receives from NAMB more than is given through the churches there.
But the better way would be for NAMB and BCNM to come to some agreement.
William,
I know that you are enamored with the new NAMB and the leadership of Dr. Ezell, who, as pastor of Highview, was less than supportive of the old NAMB. However, I’m not sure how “little ole’ New Mexico – or any of the other western states that the vaunted GCR was supposed to help (ha) — can threaten or otherwise ghettoize NAMB. That is truly laughable. I needed to start my Wednesday with a good chuckle 🙂 If autonomous state conventions — or churches for that matter — want to become better stewards and direct CP and missions money where we deem best, then what’s the problem? After all, we have been given that example for years by the megachurches, including the church were the current President of the new NAMB used to pastor.
But, you are right about one thing. It would be a better way for NAMB and the BCNM (or other state conventions) to come to an agreement. It takes two parties for an agreement. It takes two parties who want to partner together for the sake of missions and the Great Commission. It takes mutual respect and trust. How many people in this comment stream have said that they personally are aware that a true “partnership” is not what the new NAMB has conveyed to the state conventions? Why do you think that the state conventions set up their own committee to study their relationship with the new NAMB? If you think it’s all about the money, you are mistaken. Partnership and cooperation is a two-way street. Partnership and cooperation cannot be dictated from above. Maybe the new NAMB will figure this out before it’s too late. Although, given the governing style at the new NAMB, I am not at all optimistic. However, the churches of New Mexico will continue to reach the 90% lostness in our state, regardless of what the new NAMB wants to do or how the new NAMB wants to “partner” with us. But, just to be clear, the state conventions did not throw down the gauntlet. That was already hurled at us from Alpharetta. We’re just responding to the radical changes that have been dictated to us. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
William,
Your point of view does not match the conversations with live people that I have had. Unfortunately, both sides in this conversation cannot be forthright. That leads one to make some type of conclusion.
What is pretty clear to me is that NAMB made unilateral decisions not because they needed to do so, but because they felt they had been given a mandate (as you point out Mohler’s statement) to do so.
I would say, the mandate they feel they received is at odds with the reality in the field. Moving from one dysfunctional means of operation to another is not an improvement in my book.
Of course, I’m just one church out of thousands so I’m pretty confident that NAMB will get along fine without my church’s participation should we look for a more localized approach to North American Missions.
I’m sure some attrition has been factored into the equation. But, if the actuarial approach to unilateral decision-making proves inaccurate, the fall out could be catastrophic to SBC missions–especially in California.
Even if all these changes at NAMB are “good” (by some measure), too much of a good thing too fast will usually leave a big wake that is dangerous to the safe navigation of the multiple ships in the SBC armada.
I read the whole document from the CSBC with the NAMB responses and I recognize the dialog as a familiar one. I am in one of the states that is being “encouraged” to move to the 20/80 funding ratio. I put encouraged in quotes because it isn’t a matter that is up for discussion from our end. We are being told that this will be how it is. It has resulted in the same things that the CSBC document has noted, namely the disappearance of multiple staff persons from across the state who couldn’t in good faith agree to the church planting quotas that were laid down by NAMB (mostly because they were completely unrealistic for our area) and we will continue to lose people through the end of next year. These are people who are (or were) in many cases doing great ministry and helping existing churches in their quest to fulfill the Great Commission which is to make disciples. We are cutting them loose and shutting down their work for the Kingdom in the name of funneling more money into church starts.
All of the saved money is being pushed into budget lines that are designated for church planting because it has been decided that is the best way to spend our money from the CP. I am not convinced that this is the case. I have a couple of questions and I have had a hard time finding answers for them.
1) What is the average budget allocation to plant a single church under NAMB guidelines?
2) What is the average life-span of the churches we have planted in the last 10 years?
Can anyone help me with some figures on these?
SBC Ranger,
Whatever the numbers are you are going to get an answer similar to what you get with politicians–the failure is the fault of the previous administration.
Supposedly this “new” way at NAMB corrects all the problems with NAMB and in the next 10 years we will see an explosion of new churches and experience a record revival in SBC life.
All you need to do is “trust” the leaders at NAMB.
If you get another answer but that . . . I will be greatly surprised.
Frank,
Thanks for responding. I have been asking around and still not getting much in the way of answers. On the budget question, the answer essentially boils down to “it varies” but at least in our area it seems that the amounts are fairly small and are concentrated on paying the church planter so that he can focus on church planting activity rather than trying to do it bi-vocationally. The rest of the funds are generally coming from direct help outside the NAMB funding streams in most cases. I am not certain that is the case in all places.
On question 2, I haven’t gotten much of anywhere. My suspicion is that more than half of the churches we have planted are gone within ten years. I don’t see how being more focused with the money is going to change that fact. I would love to be wrong about that.
There’s an element in the success rate that isn’t always in the discussion–church planting is about a spiritual battle and the battle won’t be won with money.
More money will not equate to a higher success.
William,
One of the things that stands out from the CSBC document is the word ‘unilateral.’ This is what concerns me, though I am not from California. I am concerned that NAMB appears to be plowing through with little regard for the partnerships that can bring tons of support. While I agree with you that the cooperative agreements were mysterious – there is NO reason for Ezell or the rest of NAMB leadership to disregard our state conventions when it comes to how they will partner in the future.
You asked how should NAMB spend money. Here is my thought. . .
Let’s find a way to empower, train, educate and support the ‘gospel infrastructure’ that we have as Southern Baptists. This infrastructure is different in each area and each state and NAMB could be uniquely able (in my opinion) to work with and empower the infrastructure that we have. I trust the CSBC to decide what is needed in San Diego, L.A. (or wherever) much more than I trust anyone in Georgia. Though the funding schemes were odd, the basic foundation of partnership is not. Let’s empower and build on what we have instead of burning bridges.
My heart is to see revival, new churches and renewal. Our church gives to CP and gladly supports the AAEO each year. We give because we believe in partnership. I too am willing to see NAMB try something new (though we have seen that they would do it otherwise) but I am fearful of breaking cooperation.
All I know is what I’ve experienced in the past.
For the last 10 years of the last century a NAMB/State Convention Partnership in a state where I served as a pastor and as President of the State Convention for 2 terms spent $10,000,000. We had 100 churches and 10,000 members when we started that 10 year period and we had 100 churches and 10,000 members when we ended it.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the OLD SYSTEM didn’t work at least in that one state and I’d bet that story is multiplied throughout the “Pioneer Areas of the SBC”.
I for one welcome change but I prefer church/associational driven change over state convention/agency change.
William,
The oil that greases the skids in SBC life is TRUST – at all levels.
We have four autonomous levels in SBC life: The local church, the local Association, the state Convention, and the overarching SBC with our entities – ALL — groups under the Lord’s leadership are free to order their internal decisions and doings without external interference.
When distrust (backed by disrespect) comes into the picture, this upsets the functional cooperation of the entire SBC. When leaders at national entities send signals that “we know better” and your level of SBC autonomy is no longer important and viable for the future … then … things get messed up.
When NAMB seeks to plant a church … it will always be in someone’s state convention and local association. Therefore a spirit of partnership is vital at all levels.
Partnership is working together for the greater good of the goal. Partnership – Trust – Cooperation – Autonomy have always truly meant something in SBC Life. Anyone or any entity that goes against this grain should be called out into the SBC public arena and their motives discussed.
Blessings!
I can say right now that out here in the hinterlands, there is a growing distrust.
I trust you Dave.
Ron you nailed it.
When a church questions the state, the state says “hang in there” the CP is the greatest mission agency in the world. Now that the state is questioning the nation let’s see if they take their own advice and “hang in there”. Or will they do as some of the larger churches and cut funding?
William,
How an entity spends the money sent is something that we will never all be in agreement on. The only agreement that we have on NAMB’s spending is we release to them to make that decision. That is the reason we elect Trustees and the reason I believe in the trustee system. They are the ones I hold accountable for spending 22.79% of our CP budget, not Dr. Ezzell.
However, something that is very interesting is the CP budget amounts being reported. As we all know CP means giving through the state conventions to Nashville. A church that bypasses its state convention to give directly to Nashville is not participating in CP giving. Thus, the reporting out of Nashville tries to make the picture look nicer than it really is, especially when it comes to the CP giving as we all understand it.
According to Nashville’s figures, for the current year, we are 2.95% in the red when it comes to giving through the states. However, we are 3.42% in the black when you add the churches that by-pass their state conventions along with the individuals and estates that give directly to Nashville. Thus, if we are looking at “Cooperative” giving then the states are not “cooperating” to the tune of about 3% less than they were this time last year.
Not sure I’m following you on the direct giving. The figures I have available show about one percent of the CP was made by direct gifts in 2010 which was a decrease from earlier years.
If the Executive Committee no longer reports these as Cooperative Program giving I am unaware of it. The last annual I have at my fingertips is 2010 and these are included in the CP giving totals.
I am just gonna wait for the pendulum to swing back the other way. Lots of strategy, lots of theory, lots of reallocation, but unless the local church decides to do the work, it won’t get done. NAMB can give guidance, suggestions and fund things, but unless we get up off our hind ends and do the work, it won’t matter anyway. Ezell can be a genius or completely wrong, it doesn’t change that in the SBC, as goes the local church, as goes the convention.
Again Dan Barnes has made the comment that cuts to the heart of the matter.
Local church pastors are going to have to seriously come to grips with the mandates of Christ in the New Testament.
In addition, Paul’s second letter to Timothy is worth a major consideration as a “wake up call” as to what we are really facing in the Kingdom.
Paul stated to Timothy, “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.” Then Paul goes on to address, not the horrors of a sinful and hell bound world, but the problem of Apostasy in the local church to which Timothy had been assigned. Paul wrote that letter to Timothy in the first century. If “in the last days difficult times will come” was applicable then, how much more so is that reality applicable in the present?
As Dan Barnes stated; “Ezell can be a genius or completely wrong, it doesn’t change that in the SBC, as goes the local church, as goes the convention.”
Paul provided the only true answer to our current state of affairs in verses 14-17 in 2 Tim. 3. Take it or leave it, the entire issue is a local church issue.
Amen!
I’m not sure that NAMB would agree with you Dan, thought they may not admit it forthrightly.
It seems to me that NAMB is going to “start churches” with or without the local church. At least this seems to be the direction the rhetoric is going.
I do agree with you–if this is the case (and I think to some degree it certainly is)–that until the churches catch the vision for their own communities, little is going to get done.
I appreciate the discussion. In the past a post about this kind of inside SBC baseball stuff might generate a few comments and little informed discussion.
I’m looking forward to the discussions between the state convention execs and NAMB. I only hope that these are open so that the churches who pay all their bills may be informed.
This discussion in general reminds me of an intriguing idea put forward by Tom Ascol about NAMB back when the GCR Task Force was formed. His “recommendation was that [NAMB] be shut down and the Disaster Relief Department be fully funded to continue doing what they do better than any other relief organization that I know.”
This would leave the states responsible for church planting, etc. on their own and at least cut out the step of forwarding money to NAMB and it being forwarded back to the states.
While radical, this was one of the more intriguing ideas put forward. (It didn’t gain much traction then though).
Also NAMB just posted a webcast Ezell did (with transcript):
http://www.namb.net/nambblog1.aspx?id=8590121051&blogid=8589939695
Good link. Kevin Ezell addresses most of the questions in this topic:
“Asked if NAMB was taking more of a “top-down” approach to ministry rather than working through partnership and agreements, Ezell said “No.” He said some people might have that impression because NAMB has narrowed its focus in order to increase effectiveness.
“When you say ‘Here is our focus,’ there are some things you have to delete or not do. And so we say ‘Look, some of these things are outside of our area of focus.’ Some would interpret that as top-down.”
“In one Western state convention, Ezell said, only 25 percent of NAMB’s monies designated for church planting actually made their way directly to church plants or church planter missionaries.”
“Most of the funding transitioned out of state convention budgets came from perpetual underspends. These are monies NAMB made available year after year to a particular state convention for a specific position or project, but the state did not spend. Across all state conventions, these underspends totaled approximately $5 million annually.”