Will McRaneyResearch &#8211; Will McRaney

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links

Documented evidence on lies by Dr. Ezell

The Rest of the Story: The Why’s of Our Legal Complaint Against NAMB President Kevin Ezell – article and video by McRaneys

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 6 President’s Character & Leadership

drMac — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:53:46 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts

A sacred trust exists between the President of NAMB and Southern Baptists. One man is entrusted with enormous power, prestige, and resources to shape individual lives and direct the mission of the SBC in North America. Southern Baptists sacrificially invest themselves and their resources, for the sake of an eternal purpose, to the tune of $120 million every year. The President of NAMB makes decisions that impact staffers and thousands of planters and evangelists all across North America. The President is responsible to live honorably before God and man, to steward the financial resources, to steward both the staff and the missionaries who represent SBC efforts in Alpharetta across the land, and to set the direction and priorities for Southern Baptists in reaching North America.

This essay is the sixth and final installment of a series entitled “The New NAMB: Is it Working?” It is offered as a rebuttal to the report by Dr. Kevin Ezell to the messengers of the SBC Annual meeting in June 2016, entitled, “It is working.” I have sought to ask and answer several “better” questions than the weaker ones NAMB has been asking. This article will address the question: Have NAMB leaders reflected Christ in their attitudes and actions with others as they steward the trust placed in them by SBC churches and members?

Sometimes situations demand that the facts be laid out beyond a cursory look. This is one such time, for I will be dealing with a person God created and loves who has been entrusted with much. Communicating as accurately as possible is an expectation from God and is only right in this situation. I will not cover every fact or document that supports my claims regarding Dr. Ezell, but this treatment will necessarily have some length. While I cannot cover it all, I have attached links below to a number of articles and fact sheets that examine these areas in greater detail.

The claims I make are serious, impacting the lives of many employees, the institution of NAMB, its President, and our trustees both at NAMB and in other parts of the SBC. I must not make these claims without also providing numerous examples and supporting evidence. While acknowledging there is much I do not know, I am deeply troubled over the matters I do know and can easily support with specific evidence.

Three Important Leadership Qualities

According to Dr. Jimmy Knott in It’s All About Leadership: Be a Leader Worth Following,three qualities of a Credible Leader worth following emerge: (A) Authentic Character, (B) Exceptional Competence, and (C) Relational Connection. This raises the question: “Are there significant lapses found in Dr. Ezell?” The following examples are illustrative, but not exhaustive. Consider these facts, along with the ones described in the list of online links following the article.

A. AUTHENTIC CHARACTER

Most human actions and thoughts are out of the sight of others. Take Orlando, for example. It has 66 million visitors per year. This is over 20 million more than NYC. While Orlando is publicly known to be a safe city, it is abundantly clear that many crimes take place that are either unreported by the victims or unreported by the Orlando press. Therefore, the actions of the perpetrators go unnoticed in public and probably by most of those who know them. The same is true for Christian leaders.

My pastor revealed in a sermon that we all have three persons inside of us: public, private and secret. Character and integrity requires the public, private and secret persons as revealed in their actions to be the same. The following are examples of wrongful character revealing things by Dr. Ezell occuring mostly out of sight of others.

1. Deception and False Communication

Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I refused to meet with him prior to canceling the historic Strategic Partnership Agreement. I have seven emails requesting meetings with Dr. Ezell. The General Mission Board President of the Baptist Convention of Maryland-Delaware, Mark Dooley, reported to the General Mission Board in February of 2015: “He (Dooley) has personally seen the email correspondence that supports the opposite. McRaney has repeatedly asked Kevin Ezell, ‘Can we get together?’ Which was met with very short, terse responses, and not an openness to meet.”

Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I violated the Strategic Partnership Agreement regarding two hiring procedures by not contacting NAMB staff, that I had repeatedly and willfully violated the agreement, and as such, I was the sole reason for the cancellation of the agreement with the convention, at a loss of one million dollars to the convention for planters, missions, evangelism, and eight jointly funded staff positions. Three convention officers examined these claims and concluded: (1) Neither I nor the convention violated the hiring agreement procedures, as evidenced by a NAMB Vice President’s own communication, along with the hiring dates involved, and (2) NAMB had, in fact, violated the agreement in seven specific ways, some knowingly for their benefit and to the detriment of the convention. NAMB Vice Presidents Christopherson and Davis disproved Dr. Ezell’s accusations with their own emails and calendar.

Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I did not return a phone call from NAMB Mobilizer Kevin Marsico. This is the first of three stated concerns by Dr. Ezell in his only communication (Nov. 2014) regarding any possible conflict with me. The second was that I violated the hiring procedure of the agreement, which was false. The third was that I added a new requirement that planters must reinvest in the regional ministry around them AFTER NAMB required the convention to remove the requirement for planters to give to the Association, which was true. The only recorded call by my Executive Assistant from Marsico occurred in October 2013 just after I was hired. Marsico called to express a welcome and offer his assistance, which does not require a return phone call.

2. Violations of Dr. Ezell’s Word and of the SPA by NAMB

NAMB violated the SPA, including the very manner in which Dr. Ezell cancelled the SPA, without communicating with me as the Executive Director in advance on his intentions.

Dr. Ezell violated the agreed upon terms of our March 11, 2015 meeting. He said he would bring two NAMB Trustees, in order to satisfy our terms, but he only brought one. He tried a power play to change the location at the last minute, requesting that we change the meeting place from the convention offices to his hotel a few minutes away. He changed the agenda from “not talking about the past” to his “talking mostly about the past” after I had the opening turn and talked about our joint ministry and the future. Convention leaders perceived this as Dr. Ezell’s attempt to control the meeting and get us out of balance with his tactics. Convention Chief Financial Officer Tom Stolle described Dr. Ezell’s behaviors as “petulant.” One convention leader noted in front of our team: “You showed remarkable restraint. If that had been me, I would have come across the table at Dr. Ezell.”

Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I resigned, not that I was terminated, and that he did not interfere in the process, and in fact, was not even involved. This was reported by Baptist Press in the article dated June 20, 2016 entitled MD/DE Investigation “Concluded.” The fact remains that I was terminated. It is decidedly untrue that I was told to “resign or be terminated” by a vote of the General Mission Board of the convention on June 8, 2015. The later term “resignation” was offered and even requested by the convention if I would accept a to-be-determined severance agreement that was not agreed upon until weeks after my termination.

The convention officers provided false information in their statement released on March 24, 2016. It is abundantly clear, the officers of the convention misled the public stating a resignation on June 9, 2015 and the vote of the board to terminate me on June 8, 2015. It is apparent to many that this decision to provide cover for Dr. Ezell was also an effort to cover themselves concerning the quick, unjust, and induced termination. Lots of ministers in this story are having a hard time telling the truth!

I requested a correction to Baptist Press leaders and to Dr. Page and the Communication team after their article on April 13, 2017. In doing so, I provided them with the first page of my separation agreement with the state convention which clearly indicates I was terminated on June 8, 2015, just days before the 2015 SBC Convention.

At the State Executive Directors meeting in California in February 2017, Dr. Ezell stated that he had talked with some State Executives that he trusted regarding the hiring of a new young leader at NAMB. Reportedly, Dr. Ezell represented that he received counsel and implied support of the proposed hire. However, two of the state executives interrupted Dr. Ezell to communicate the exact opposite. One Executive Director replied to Dr. Ezell, “I told you this was the response you would get.” Why did Dr. Ezell speak falsely in front of State Executives who he knew could confront him publicly? Is he in the habit of being loose with the truth?

A highly respected former State Executive has relayed stories of Dr. Ezell calling him for counsel only to learn later that Dr. Ezell misrepresented what that former State Executive had said. Why would Dr. Ezell do this? Was he borrowing credibility without regard for the truth?

If Dr. Ezell acts with deception, makes false accusations, and speaks falsely about his own behavior and conversations with State leaders, can he be trusted to represent the truth without guile? If Dr. Ezell will make false accusations against a brother, then what else will he do to damage someone? If he misrepresents conversations, can he ever be believed? Dr. Ezell did not follow Biblical commands to clear up relationships, nor did he accept my offers to do so. Then, he lied about it. So, why is Dr. Ezell communicating with deception in the ways noted above? There appears to be a character problem.

3. Abuses and Misuses of Power, Position and Money

On Dec. 2, 2014, Dr. Ezell in violation of the terms of the agreement, threatened the BCMD with a Notice of Cancellation Letter, which would have resulted in the loss of $1 million from the convention. This money was already committed to funding church planters, missions, evangelism and eight jointly-funded staff members. Incidentally, state convention churches annually contributed about $950,000 per year to NAMB through the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering and NAMB’s portion of Cooperative Program gifts. Similar amounts were exchanged in both directions, yet Dr. Ezell threated to withhold NAMB’s committed resources due to his false allegations, while still continuing to accept the almost $1 million funds from the state convention.

As noted above, Dr. Ezell based his cancellation on the false accusations against me. Later, Dr. Ezell stated that NAMB would withhold financial support to the state convention as long as I remained the Executive Director. There are several smoking guns on Ezell’s threat. Numerous public verbalizations of the Ezell threat were made by the state convention President Bill Warren, who orchestrated my termination. One can follow the money trail. Significantly, the day after I was terminated, Warren stated, and later verified, that he believed the Lord would have him to be the next Executive Director.

Dr. Ezell made good on his promises. The state convention budgets and the board meeting minutes reveal post-termination additional gifts and financial commitments to the state convention in the amount of $675,000 payable in 2016 and $825,000 payable in 2017.

On February 5, 2015, Dr. Ezell texted a threat to a board member during a board meeting that Dr. Ezell knew was taking place. He threatened the Executive Director and the leadership of the state convention. The meeting resulted in 100% vote to: (1) reject NAMB’s offer to take over 100% of church planting and any partnership agreement establishing such terms, and (2) affirm support for my leadership and my approach in dealing with NAMB.

Dr. Ezell’s threat did not serve the purposes of NAMB in evangelism and missions or assist a ministry partner in the state convention. So why did Dr. Ezell make the threats and the false statements within them? Is there not a character problem?

Several State Executive Directors, SBC pastors and members of the press have discussed the new 2014 version of the Strategic Partnership Agreement NAMB was pressuring state conventions to adopt. I highlighted changes from 2012-2014 agreement in an article Going Going Gone Sold: Essential Elements of SBC Mission Efforts. We see the existence of gag orders on the State Conventions and the threat of funding cuts if the gag orders were violated or if state convention staff talked negatively about NAMB, or even revealed the terms of their Strategic Partnership Agreements.

The Christian Examiner editor wrote, “Several Southern Baptist state convention leaders have accused the denomination’s North American Mission Board (NAMB) of linking financial support from the national entity – funding for church planting and other ministries – to secretive Cooperative Agreements which include a clause that threatens to withhold ministry funds to the states if disclosures about the agreement – or concerns – are shared publicly.”

State leaders and pastors have expressed concern that Dr. Ezell is using gag orders, threats, and strong-arming tactics. This does not reflect the spirit of a cooperative partnership, but rather one of coercion. So why did Dr. Ezell use such tactics with several State Convention executive Directors? Is there not a character problem?

4. Punitive, Vindictive and Other Behaviors

Dr. Ezell interfered in my working relationship with the state convention by working around me and talking with Board President Bill Warren instead. In fact, Warren stated to the executive leadership team and the officers that Dr. Ezell told him that if McRaney would behave himself for six months, Dr. Ezell would talk with me. In essence, Dr. Ezell was putting me on probation for six months from talking with him. What a power move to dominate me and damage my leadership! What happened to wanting to meet as he falsely claimed? Where is the application of the basic teachings of Jesus? Was Dr. Ezell punishing me? It appears that Dr Ezell is having difficulties with telling the truth. His character is once again being exposed.

In a meeting of selected state convention officers to discuss how to address Ezell’s Notice of Cancellation, a former state convention President with national influence shared his experience and knowledge with the officers on December 16, 2014. This leader noted that Dr. Ezell is known to be vindictive to those who oppose him, regardless of the validity of the concerns.

I had speaking engagements scheduled for the fall of 2016 in Mississippi and Florida. Evidence indicates that Dr. Ezell and NAMB representatives engaged in efforts to interfere with my speaking opportunities to provide for my family financially. I have since received additional confirmation of Dr. Ezell’s involvement.

Dr. Ezell or other NAMB leaders posted my picture at the Welcome Desk of NAMB headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia. Why? What message was being sent to everyone who saw this 8 x 10 picture? NAMB attorneys communicated to my attorney that it was over “security” concerns. Really? Is this the action of an innocent man or the act of a guilty man? The picture, in full view, was taken in the fall of 2016 by a current Executive Committee member of the SBC who is a highly respected leader.

In early April 2017, a former state leader testified that he was told Dr. Ezell made a call to a ministry leader where the former state leader was being considered for a new position. Dr. Ezell had no responsibility or involvement with that ministry, yet chose to damage a fellow minister with his negative perspectives. The former state leader was looking to reengage in ministry and provide for his family. The man is working through his hurt and trying to make a living. Is it any wonder he has not yet come forward to expose Dr. Ezell’s involvement? Ezell has shown by word and deed who he is and what lengths he will go to in order to get what he wants and to damage people as he pleases. Wherever is there a place for this kind of activity in Christian work?

Dozens of national and state leaders have used the following descriptors of Dr. Ezell. They know, but keep silent for their own reasons, such as concern for the SBC or possible personal retribution. These words are being used to describe Dr. Ezell: vindictive, unstable, reckless, petulant, and impulsive.

Leaders lead out of who they are! What does this sample of KNOWN actions say about Dr. Ezell? Who knows what else has happened that has remained unspoken? Do these representative actions reveal poor character? Are they behaviors of a Christian who is sensitive to obeying Biblical commands? Should this leader be entrusted with setting direction and leading our staff and missionaries? Should he be stewarding the enormous resources of Southern Baptist Churches and members? How many times can you intentionally bear false witness to your actions and the actions of others? How many times can you intentionally seek to damage brothers and fellow leaders? How many times can you threaten and bully individuals and state conventions while keeping a position of trust as the President of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention?

B. EXCEPTIONAL COMPETENCE

NAMB is charged with helping the SBC evangelize North America. In 2010, Dr. Ezell began an all-out single focus on church planting. This strategy has caused dramatic shifts in staff, state partnerships, financial priorities, and associational partnerships. What have been the results of Dr. Ezell’s leadership as he turned NAMB and parts of the SBC upside down?

NAMB as noted in my two previous articles on Baptism and Church Planting, has reduced the evangelism budget to 5% of the annual $120 million budget. During the last six years this has been reduced from $20.6 million to $6.3 million. The New NAMB has defunded the vast majority of NAMB national evangelism staff to assist state conventions and churches. In 2017, the $6.3 million for evangelism is roughly half of the $12 million used to purchase homes for church planters.

The church planting budget has increased each year, so that it now represents in 2017 an increase of 3.5 times the amount of funds budgeted in 2010 for church planting. NAMB has budgeted $62 million to purchase homes for church planters over about a six year period, with 89 homes already purchased.

In non-Southern states, NAMB has defunded jointly funded state evangelism staff, including the State DOMS where they are most needed, almost all the collegiate student ministers, and the joint funding for Association ministries and DOMS.

Have those landscape changing strategies produced the results as promised in the key SBC metrics? Absolutely not. To the contrary, in every single significant measureable, Southern Baptists are in alarming decline. Here are key facts which I discuss in more detail in the previous articles on Baptist and Church Planting.

1. Baptisms

Baptisms are down 18.7% per church over the past six years under the New NAMB. Total baptisms are down over 45,000 per year during the past six years compared to the previous six years. Baptisms are at a 70-year low, and in a continual slide downward, even while the US population and the number of SBC churches is increasing. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary President Dr. Chuck Kelley noted, “Southern Baptists are closer to losing the South than we are to reaching North America. If we lose the South, eventually, we lose everything.” What do these numbers say about the effectiveness of the strategy that has dismantled much of evangelism at local, state and national levels? Has NAMB helped Southern Baptists be more or less effective in NAMB’s primary mission assignment?

2. Church Planting

The foundational statistic used to justify the radical overhaul of “all things NAMB” to support the single focus of church planting is misleading and flawed, whether by statistical ignorance or intentional guile. Church plants and established churches have baptism ratios based on membership that are within a few percentages of each other. While there are many good reasons to start churches, the new churches are nowhere near the NAMB reported “three to four times more effective in evangelism” statistic.

The following are calculations based on reports by NAMB and reports found in SBC Annuals each year. Southern Baptists are planting 444 fewer churches per year during the past six years compared to the previous six years, in spite of current 2017 expenditures that are 3.5 times greater than in years past. The SBC has planted 2,665 fewer churches during the past six years than during the previous six years. The New NAMB National Strategy has produced (a) reduced funding for evangelism, (b) weakened SBC ties, (c) diminished trust levels, (d) weakened relationships, and (e) reduced evangelistic collaboration. The strategic and tactical problems being discussed are planter placement, satellite campus funding, funding outside networks, and nationalized control.

Dr. Ezell initiated these radical changes and presided over the radical declines. His strategic decisions, in addition to his character, have impacted NAMB and the SBC in remarkable ways. In the question of competence, is NAMB helping to produce healthier and stronger results? Or has NAMB and the SBC hastened downward?

C. RELATIONAL CONNECTION

The President of NAMB is a leader for all Southern Baptists, pastors, laypeople, Associational missionaries, and State Convention missionaries and strategists. He needs to relate to a wide variety of people as Southern Baptists are a diverse group geographically, ethnically, racially, in terms of age, church size, worship style and language. His relationships and the relationships he fosters by protecting and enhancing trust and goodwill will impact the SBC for decades to come. His failures in these areas also impact us. We are a people who operate as volunteers who choose to work together in cooperation. The President of NAMB needs to be adding to trust and goodwill among all parts of the SBC family.

By observation and experience, anyone who has a brief encounter with Dr. Ezell will recognize his affability. He presents a warm and inviting first impression that seems to make people feel comfortable. However, a non-Southern State Executive noted to others that Dr. Ezell is “affable, but not nice.” He noted that he had observed Dr. Ezell’s actions and relayed that he was not a man who could be trusted, would not keep his word, had intentionally hurt people he knew, and was not someone he would describe as nice.

Why is this being said about Dr. Ezell? What does this State Executive Director’s comments to others say about Dr. Ezell? Is this also tied to faulty character, faulty strategy, and faulty perspectives on who Southern Baptists are, as by his own words when hired, he had disengaged from NAMB as a pastor?

NAMB Presidents cheer on and build up SBC partners. However, it appears that Dr. Ezell has started multiple new partnerships outside the SBC, while at the same time setting strategies and setting large budget allocations that have damaged SBC sister partners, both at the local and state levels.

Why? Maybe this reflects his perceived mandate from the GCR. Maybe this reflects his own bad experiences and lack of personal engagement with his Association and/or State Convention. Maybe he had bad experiences or just could not see from his megachurch view how either of these entities were really contributing to the whole of the SBC, and in fact, are the backbone in various ways. I have captured some of the issues of partnership in the SBC ecosystem by writing various articles linked below.

Dealing with Decline: The Future of Southern Baptist Cooperation

Going, Going, Gone, Sold: Essential Elements of the SBC Mission Efforts

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Partnerships

“A long-tenured national leader declared, “Partnership is dead in the SBC.” He, I and I am sure you, all hope he is wrong. However, groanings deep inside SBC life are indicating that walls may be beginning to crumble. The violations of trust and good will among and between SBC entities and Southern Baptists to their local, state and national agencies may not be able to be repaired. When the nationalization is fully set, and it is deep into the process, what has been dismantled and taken apart for short-term gains, will forever not be able to be put back together again. God has used the SBC, but God is not obligated to bless in the future. God help us!”

Is Dr. Ezell’s perspective accurate or are the perspectives of leaders who have invested the bulk of their ministry in serving the people and purposes of Southern Baptists? Are partnerships strong or are they closer to “dead?” Why, or better yet, how can the SBC maintain cooperation, advance together, and operate under the blessing of God if our NAMB President is building new partnerships, but damaging SBC ones?

The Damages and Hurts are Personal as Heads Turn Away

For me Dr. Ezell’s action are personal, but I recognize that Sandy and our girls are but a few of those who have had to deal with the consequences of being on the wrong side of Dr. Ezell. Southern Baptists deserve better from their NAMB President.

Not a single, not even one single national leader ever reached out to me after my questionable and untimely termination, even though many of them have seen his character firsthand. In fact, only a few state leaders did so. I was the one beaten on the side of the road and watched my former friends and national level religious leaders walk by, literally on the other side as they went on their SBC business way. The congratulatory calls and the letters came when I was appointed to the position by God and elected by the Board, but NOTHING after my unjust termination. Where is the Soul of the SBC and its leaders?

Sadly, most of the men I have talked with are in the know. They know the truths shared above to ring true with their own experiences with Dr. Ezell. In fact, one national leader has a file he keeps on things just related to Dr. Ezell. Yet, the sound of silence among these men is deafening. The Bible is so clear. When we know the right thing to do and do it not, it is sin. (James 4:19) The mostly loving thing the NAMB Trustee leaders and national leaders and even pastor friends can do is to encourage Kevin toward repentance and public and private confession. It is hard to live like this before a Holy God. There is freedom in Christ, but it begins with humility of heart that results in confession and prayer. (James 5:16)

Sandy and I have absorbed countless hurts. We love people and we are all in people in our work, ministry and in our personal lives. It is who we are. If you love deeply, you can experience deep joys and deep hurts. I will never forget the look on Sandy’s face as one of our top national leaders was coming down the hall in Columbus, Ohio, at the SBC in 2015, about eight days after my termination. She saw that leader quickly look away and skirt by us instead of reaching out to us. It spoke volumes and actually forecasted much of the reception or the lack of that we would receive from people like him who used to welcome us: ignore and deny and hope it goes away or the damage is limited. God is holy and just.

After thirty years of faithful and fruitful ministry among Southern Baptists, for 22 months now I have been unemployed, but now I have founded, “The Church Strengthening Network” and I am starting over to rebuild from no base. No calls have come offering help to get me back on my feet after this powerful bully knocked me down. I have been blown away and hurt all over again with such silence. Take a look at my resume and academic vitae on my website and see what you think. It has been pointed out to me that if I had a problem with alcohol, or an affair or outburst with an uncontrolled temper, someone would have to my rescue and offered help. But because I am the victim of libel and interference by the NAMB President and dare to speak truth, there are no calls or offers to help. As one State Executive said, “The SBC knows how to handle adultery and embezzlement, but not how to handle a bully.”

When a man repeatedly speaks falsely and seeks to damage others, he is unfit to lead and has forfeited the trust and privilege of stewarding people, money, and priorities that originate in the pockets of faithful and generous Southern Baptists. If hearts get right with Jesus, the NAMB Trustees will know what to do to make restitution and restore me. If not, my suggestions would only add words to this document. I tried absolutely everything to prevent taking this matter to court for justice, but to no avail. The sins are not just of a man, but of an agency and others. The sins were not just against a person or a people such as the state convention (and probably many others around North America) but against God Himself. The offenses were not just personal, but involved organizational neglect and a pattern of bullying by the NAMB President that has been ignored and denied. If you would like to hear the story behind the filing of the legal complaint, you can hear my wife Sandy and I discuss the matter on our website and read the related article.

Conclusion

Every child of God is a work in progress, not yet perfected. However the qualifications of those who seek spiritual leadership, such as pastors, are demanding and exacting. As to the President of NAMB, we must have high demands in terms of authentic character, exceptional competence, and relational connection. Dr. Ezell has significant failures in all three areas.

From my personal experience and documented facts, it is apparent to me there are serious and obviously disqualifying behaviors that have been identified by numerous SBC national, state and associational leaders. The patterns are the same. The damages widespread, not isolated. The conclusion should be obvious to those with eyes to see, minds to perceive, hearts to feel, and a willingness to obey God.

With Dr. Ezell’s patterns of misleading communication and his affability and a $120 million budget that he is controlling, it is no surprise how Dr. Ezell has fooled many trustees, developed a loyal band of followers, and convinced many people to disregard the documented and court filed complaints of libel and tortious interference.

Dr. Ezell’s actions do not reflect the spirit of Christ or the spirit of brotherly love and cooperation expected by all Southern Baptists. However, as I have said and written repeatedly, the facts are documented, verified by witnesses, and are unimpeachable. At some point Dr. Ezell moved away from doing the will of Father and got focused on other wills. Perhaps it was his own will. The intentions of his heart are of little importance, frankly. As Proverbs 20:11 reminds us, “Even small children are known by their actions, so is their conduct really pure and upright?”

LINKS TO RELATED ARTICLES:

Is the New NAMB Really Working Six Part Series

Open Letters

Initial Letter of Concern to NAMB Trustees

June 2016 Letter to NAMB Trustees

Troubling Times Under Dr. Ezell

Ezell’s Lies and False Statements

Summary of Claims/Accusations Against Ezell

McRaneys Tell Story of Ezell’s Overreach

The Whys of the Legal Complaint Against Ezell/NAMB

Going Going Gone, Sold: Essential Elements of SBC Mission Efforts

Dealing with Decline: The Future of Southern Baptist Cooperation

Supporting Documents

Statements of Fact: Detailed Version

Timelines – NAMB with MD/DE Convention – Three Versions

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 6 Character (Abridged)

drMac — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:59:46 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts

A sacred trust exists between the President of NAMB and Southern Baptists. One man is entrusted with enormous power, prestige, and resources to shape individual lives and direct the mission of the SBC in North America. Southern Baptists sacrificially invest themselves and their resources, for the sake of an eternal purpose, to the tune of $120 million every year. The President of NAMB makes decisions that impact staffers and thousands of planters and evangelists all across North America. The President is responsible to live honorably before God and man, to steward the financial resources, to steward both the staff and the missionaries who represent SBC efforts in Alpharetta across the land, and to set the direction and priorities for Southern Baptists in reaching North America.

This essay is the sixth of a series entitled “The New NAMB: Is it Working?” It is offered as a response to the report by Dr. Kevin Ezell to the messengers of the SBC Annual meeting in June 2016, entitled, “It is working.” I have sought to ask and answer several “better” questions than the weaker ones NAMB has been asking. This article will address the question: Have NAMB leaders reflected Christ in their attitudes and actions with others as they steward the trust placed in them by SBC churches and members?

Three Important Leadership Qualities

According to Dr. Jimmy Knott in It’s All About Leadership: Be a Leader Worth Following, three qualities of a Credible Leader worth following emerge: (A) Authentic Character, (B) Exceptional Competence, and (C) Relational Connection. This raises the question: “Has the actions of Dr. Ezell demonstrated character concerns?” The following examples are illustrative, but not exhaustive. Consider these facts, along with the ones described in the list of online links following the article.

AUTHENTIC CHARACTER?

1. Deception and False Communication

(1) Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I refused to meet with him prior to canceling the historic Strategic Partnership Agreement. I have seven emails requesting meetings with Dr. Ezell. The General Mission Board President of the Baptist Convention of Maryland-Delaware, Mark Dooley, reported to the General Mission Board in February of 2015: “He (Dooley) has personally seen the email correspondence that supports the opposite. McRaney has repeatedly asked Kevin Ezell, ‘Can we get together?’ Which was met with very short, terse responses, and not an openness to meet.”

(2) Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I violated the Strategic Partnership Agreement regarding two hiring procedures by not contacting NAMB staff, that I had repeatedly and willfully violated the agreement, and as such, I was the sole reason for the cancellation of the agreement with the convention, at a loss of one million dollars to the convention for planters, missions, evangelism, and eight jointly funded staff positions. Three convention officers examined these claims and concluded: (1) Neither I nor the convention violated the hiring agreement procedures, as evidenced by a NAMB Vice President’s own communication, along with the hiring dates involved, and (2) NAMB had, in fact, violated the agreement in seven specific ways, some knowingly for their benefit and to the detriment of the convention. NAMB Vice Presidents Christopherson and Davis disproved Dr. Ezell’s accusations with their own emails and calendar.

(3) Dr. Ezell falsely stated that I did not return a phone call from NAMB Mobilizer Kevin Marsico. This is the first of three stated concerns by Dr. Ezell in his only communication (Nov. 2014) regarding any possible conflict with me. The second was that I violated the hiring procedure of the agreement, which was false. The third was that I added a new requirement that planters must reinvest in the regional ministry around them AFTER NAMB required the convention to remove the requirement for planters to give to the Association, which was true. The only recorded call by my Executive Assistant from Marsico occurred in October 2013 just after I was hired. Marsico called to express a welcome and offer his assistance, which does not require a return phone call.

2. Violations of Dr. Ezell’s Word and of the SPA by NAMB

NAMB violated the SPA, including the very manner in which Dr. Ezell cancelled the SPA, without communicating with me as the Executive Director in advance on his intentions.

The BCMD convention officers provided false information in their statement released on March 24, 2016. It is abundantly clear, the officers of the convention misled the public stating a resignation on June 9, 2015 and the vote of the board to terminate me on June 8, 2015. It is apparent to many that this decision to provide cover for Dr. Ezell was also an effort to cover themselves concerning the quick, unjust, and induced termination. Lots of ministers in this story are having a hard time telling the truth!

Documented evidence on lies by Dr. Ezell

3. Abuses and Misuses of Power, Position and Money

4. Punitive, Vindictive and Other Behaviors

Dr. Ezell interfered in my working relationship with the state convention by working around me and talking with Board President Bill Warren instead. In fact, Warren stated to the executive leadership team and the officers that Dr. Ezell told him that if McRaney would behave himself for six months, Dr. Ezell would talk with me. In essence, Dr. Ezell was putting me on probation for six months from talking with him. What a power move to dominate me and damage my leadership! What happened to wanting to meet as he falsely claimed? Where is the application of the basic teachings of Jesus? Was Dr. Ezell punishing me? It appears that Dr Ezell is having difficulties with telling the truth. His character is once again being exposed.

Damaging Interference with Another Leader

Unflattering Descriptors

Dozens of national and state leaders have used the following descriptors of Dr. Ezell. They know, but keep silent for their own reasons, such as concern for the SBC or possible personal retribution. These words are being used to describe Dr. Ezell: vindictive, unstable, reckless, petulant, and impulsive.

Questions to Consider

Conclusion

Have NAMB leaders reflected Christ in their attitudes and actions with others as they steward the trust placed in them by SBC churches and members?

Series of Articles – “Is the New NAMB Really Working”

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 5 Financial Stewardship

drMac — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:00:36 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts

Southern Baptists invest and entrust $375 million annually to national and international causes through the Cooperative Program and directly through our two primary mission offerings, Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. Since, NAMB leaders alone steward over $400 million in assets and a $120 million annual budget, the office of the President of NAMB carries enormous trust and should possess the utmost integrity.

Its stands to reason that an examination of the stewarding of the staggering financial resources entrusted to NAMB would not only be acceptable, but would be welcomed. Most assuredly the generous gifts are resourcing missionaries and helping to advance the gospel. Yet, a closer look is merited just as in a family budget, as a matter of accountability to determine, perhaps even more importantly if the resources are helping to accomplish the objectives and values of Southern Baptist givers. Those givers, many of them on a fixed income in our 30,000 bedrock churches of 200 or less, have every expectation that those in charge of setting direction and providing oversight are using their resources wisely. Those same bedrock churches give 41% of all CP dollars.

I am not suggesting personal or corporate misuse of resources for personal financial gain. However, the facts reveal that SBC resources have been parlayed and misused to secure favors for Dr. Ezell and organizational compliance or silence for NAMB. The facts reveal that Dr. Ezell used SBC entrusted financial resources to threaten a state convention staff, mission and their Executive Director. The facts reveal that NAMB has reprioritized funds to church planting at the expense of national and state evangelism staff while baptisms are declining at alarming rates.

Dr. Ezell’s Tenure and How It All Began

According to the Louisiana Baptist Messenger, between 2010 and 2015, the financial position of NAMB improved $121.8 million. The two largest factors contributing to this were (1) increase of $77.4 million in unrestricted assets and (2) a drop of $33.7 million in post-retirement benefits liability resulting from the termination of 37% of the NAMB staff, mostly over the age of 54, in the first eight months of Dr. Ezell’s tenure. The major staff reductions reflect often used corporate America business practices to make what Dr. Ezell refers to as a “leaner” NAMB. But what the SBC lost in transition was some faithful and experienced servants who were connected and trusted by State Conventions, Associations, churches and pastors all over North America. People matter to Jesus, regardless of having a new leader and focus. Because SBC partnerships are voluntary, relationships matter even more, therefore turnover is more costly outside the balance sheet.

Unacceptable Threats

Fast forward to December 2014 and documented evidence reveals Dr. Ezell used $1million of SBC given money to threaten the jointly funded staff, church planters, ministries and the Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of MD/DE (BCMD). In the threat, Dr. Ezell made provable false accusations and violated the Agreement in the manner of his cancellation. If the threat was not enough, Dr. Ezell rewarded the BCMD with what amounts to an extra $675,000 for 2016 and $825,000 for 2017. A claim regarding this matter has been filed in a state court to determine if Dr. Ezell violated laws against this type of interference with a work relationship and committed libel.

A Board member in a non-Southern State Convention has recently shared his experience and concern. He communicated that while his State Convention of West Virginia was searching for a new State Executive Director (ED), Dr. Ezell and one of his VPs indicated Ezell would pay for two years of the salary of the Executive Director. The Board was initially asked to approve the candidate as their ED without his presence or his name “because Dr. Ezell was going to pay his salary for two years.” The State Board rejected the highly unusual “anonymous approach”, but later approved the same man when his name was provided. Interestingly, back in 2008 Dr. Ezell nominated that same ED for 1^st VP of the Southern Baptist Convention. Was paying the ED’s salary for two years an act of generosity on behalf of Southern Baptists or was influence being purchased? Are there other State Conventions where SBC money has been used to get what Dr. Ezell wanted?

Yet another example involves a past Chairman of NAMB Trustees who after his resignation from his pastorate, was “picked up” by NAMB to serve as a National Mobilizer the following month. But wait, there’s more….This same man then finds himself as the new Executive Director in Michigan only 5 months later. Coincidentally, a NAMB VP, Steve Davis, served as an advisor for the Michigan search team in their quest for a new exec. All of this is documented through press releases and published materials.

Areas of Concern

Storing Up Money

Baptist Press reported Dr. Ezell on Oct. 22, 2010 as saying, “We will do the best for every dollar Baptists send us.” In a NAMB release to BP on Nov. 13, 2015, Dr. Ezell said, “Southern Baptist don’t give sacrificially so that we can leave money unspent.” However in 2014, NAMB reported $285 million in unrestricted reserves, which is over $100 more than NAMB held in 2009. Do we want our NAMB to posses this level of reserves while we have defunded NAMB and state evangelism staff, experiencing 70 year low baptisms and our 47,000 churches are baptizing 18.8% fewer people per year ?

Trading Money for Support or Compliance?

The temptations are great when leaders have access to distribute large amounts of discretionary funds. The temptation to use money to reward and punish is even higher when the organization is undergoing major changes. When a leader’s actions have included making threats to State Convention partners and against a State Convention’s elected Executive Director, all types of questions arise about what else that leader is doing to buy influence, secure silence or pay off other leaders to get what he wants.

When a leader has acted in bad faith, trust is damaged and the presumption of innocence is gone. An independent investigation into the checkbook of NAMB beyond financial audits could be revealing. If there is nothing there, then nothing will be found.

NAMB Trustees: Potential Conflict of Interest

People are asking, “are the churches of NAMB Trustees receiving funds from NAMB to plants churches or start satellites?” The answer is YES. Pastors are expressing their concern that NAMB Trustees receiving funds may give the appearance of a conflict of interest in regard to their oversight responsibilities to the SBC.

Real-estate Purchases by NAMB for Planters to Use

Several concerns have developed around NAMB’s purchasing of buildings across the country. NAMB has purchased buildings to set up headquarters from which to conduct ministry from, such as compassion ministries and other types of relief. Are there not churches that are ready, willing and able to assist without NAMB owning and managing additional buildings. Should a national entity even be doing this type of ministry or is it better done by local Baptists in coordination with their state leaders? Questions are stirring on whether or not these types of purchases are a means to store financial resources or a move to garner additional good PR in the midst of noteworthy declines?

In its 2016 Financial Management Report, NAMB relayed its commitment to use $62 million of SBC given resources to purchase at least 4 homes in each of the 32 Send Cities and latest notes are they may be considering purchasing additional homes beyond the 32 cities. At last known reporting, 89 homes have ALREADY been purchased.

Several related questions are swirling among Southern Baptist leaders and members. First, when did NAMB get into the business of purchasing homes for planters to use? Second, how can NAMB even know where to purchase homes, as cities are constantly undergoing populations shifts so the strategic need is a moving target. Who at NAMB is making those decisions in 32 different cities? Third, is this another way for NAMB to tie up SBC resources in light of the remarkably high unrestricted reserves? Finally, is spending $12 million for housing for church planters in 2017 wise in light of slashing the evangelism budget almost in half to a paltry $6.3 million?

Having planted a church about 1,400 miles from family and friends, I understand the need. The issue is not whether planters, or even pastors of established churches in major cities need access to a home in their mission field. The issue is should NAMB be a LANDLORD all over the country or is the need better addressed by planters in coordination with local church leaders and their sponsoring church(s)?

Home FOR a Planter?

According to multiple leaders in conversations with me and others, NAMB actually purchased a home in the name of a church planter in Las Vegas, not to provide temporary housing, but actually gave him the home as he got started. If this is accurate, is this an example of using SBC funds to secure loyalty or was there a strategic reason to purchase this home for this one planters out of some 925 SBC church planters we have every year for the last six years?

Decimated Evangelism Budget

The Former (pre-Ezell) NAMB was investing $20.6 million in evangelism and the New NAMB has slashed the evangelism budget to $6.3 million in 2017. NAMB has decimated national evangelism staff, defunded jointly funded evangelism missionaries such as State Director of Evangelism, and reduced and eliminated financial support of other historic evangelism and local mission efforts.

Tripling Funds for Church Planting w/ Fewer Results

NAMB initially doubled allocation of funds to church planting. That number continues to rise. In 2017 the budgeted amount for church plantings is 3.5 times more than in 2010 when Dr. Ezell became President. With the New NAMB planting an average of 444 fewer churches per year, has it been wise stewardship to continue to invest even more dollars, but which has resulted in fewer plants? What about slashing the evangelism budgets and staffing across North America while SBC churches collectively are baptizing over 45,000 less per year and baptisms have declined an average of 18.8% per church over the last six years?

Funding Satellite Campuses

Concerns are being expressed by pastors of small and mid-size churches that NAMB is funding large and mega church satellite campuses. Those churches are noting that unless the satellites are evangelizing the lost for their congregations, the people reached would be Christians from small and mid-size churches like theirs. Consequently, the money the average SBC congregation is sending to CP may eventually drive their own churches out of business as people flock to a more impressive satellite.

Hidden Cost – WARNING!

The single greatest stewardship in church planting is the planter and his family. It will take another article to address this matter fully, but let me communicate, that I am deeply, deeply concerned that we are recruiting and using up (often for our own purposes) courageous men of faith who put themselves, their families, and their ministry on the line in making the sacrifices to plant a church. We are sending them into tough places of services with inadequate training and local support, in fact, NAMB’s flawed strategies are dismantling essential components at the local and state levels, while burning through sponsoring churches who are frustrated by what they see happening.

Surely some planters are looking to be in on the “cool” thing, but most are faithfully seeking to follow Jesus into the battlefield. My primary concern that I had as the professor of church planting at NOBTS, the Team Strategist for Church Planting in Florida, and the Executive Director of the BCDM was the stewardship of the planter and his family. So, training AND support were the focus, as was contextual fit, not the number of church plants. It appears that church planters are being recruited and used up like commodities. If they survive and thrive, NAMB writes about them for their own purposes, often without their knowledge. If the plant does not become viable, the planters once touted, and doted on and taken to sporting events and sent gift cards become soon to be forgotten causalities. They are left alone to fend for themselves as they pick up the pieces and their families and return to safer grounds. Let me be clear… all the leaders involved will have to give an account for how we treat people, not how many of them we can recruit and use. I am confident the planters get this figured out in spite of the positive PR along with small gifts.

Conclusion

All financial gifts to non-profits are expressions of trust and that should be guarded. Agency trustees, leaders and staff are stewards of the trust and the financial resources. Southern Baptists on the ground expect their leaders to please Jesus and honor their stewardship. Are these the types of decisions and actions that indicate that NAMB is working well in the use of the finances entrusted to them?

What would be discovered if the checkbooks of NAMB were examined? Could we find additional situations which would raise more concerns about the buying of favors or SBC money being used to reward desired behaviors and support, while punishing others? How much more information and documentation is needed to determine there is a problem and that it begins at the top?

If the lack of character of our current leader enables him to use SBC money to damage people and buy influence, then there is no end to opportunities for him to do so. The money and influence demands high accountability and oversight by trustees on behalf of Southern Baptists. That is NOT happening.

Interestingly, in church planting assessments, it is widely accepted that “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.” Let’s apply that church planting wisdom to Dr. Ezell himself. Has trust been violated? Do we want more of these behaviors? NO!

Series of Articles – “Is the New NAMB Really Working”

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links

Going, Going, Gone, Sold: Essential Elements of the SBC Mission Efforts

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 4 Partnership

drMac — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:13:55 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts

For decades, the Southern Baptist ecosystem of missions support has been the envy of other networks and denominations. However, it is in danger of crumbling down like the walls of Jericho. Sounds rumbling from the earth indicate this crumbling has already begun. Our NAMB President has damaged three essential ingredients of strong and lasting partnership in the SBC—our trust and goodwill, our mutual interdependence, and our spirit of respectful and selfless cooperation. The nationalization of our missions efforts with inappropriate tactics has violated and damaged trust, goodwill, and cooperation. We are dismantling the essential fibers of our SBC missions efforts. Like Humpty Dumpty, they will be hard to put back together again.

Current Southern Baptists inherited walls we did not build with our hands, but we have stewarded what was entrusted to us. Our walls were built by previous generations of faithful mission givers. While we inherited great resources, like kings of old, we cannot trust alone in the strength of our walls to remain, but must connect to God and walk humbly before the Creator and Sustainer of all. We must also as one body be rightly connected to our differing parts: local, state and national. As we face increasing hardships, our cooperation at all three levels is essential if we are going to strengthen our witness. A cord of three strands is stronger than a cord of only one strand.

This essay is the fourth part of a series entitled The New NAMB—Is It Working? Throughout this series, we are exposing the questions being asked by NAMB as weaker questions than the better questions we are asking. Today’s “better question” is this one: Under the New NAMB, have essential partnerships and the spirit of cooperation been enhanced or damaged?

Expressions of Government

Can you imagine only having a federal government with no local or state government, even with all of their shortcomings? What a disaster that would be! In the same way, can you imagine the SBC existing in only its national form? Our present system is not only essential in the South, but is particularly vital in the non-South regions where mutual interconnection is essential to survival. A centralized NAMB, regardless of its size or benevolence, cannot provide the strength or relationships necessary to help local churches through the hard times that are on the horizon.

Historical Cooperation Facing Challenges

The SBC was built and is held together around several pillars allowing us to advance the gospel across the nation and around the globe. Several key commonalities bound us together: doctrine around The Baptist Faith and Message, the training of clergy through our SBC seminaries, a congregational form of church governance, common organizational structures and ministry programing, and a unifying approach to investing in mission efforts through the Cooperative Program.

We were mostly Southern, white, and English speaking. We used materials published by the Baptist Sunday School Board. We sang the same hymns in our churches, had dinner on the grounds or in the fellowship hall, and offered ministry programming like VBS, WMU, Brotherhood, Training Union, and a host of others. Our churches served as the centerpiece of community life.

Things have changed. We celebrate a greater diversity today. We have adjusted to various unique approaches in order to impact the nations God has brought to North America. However, this growing diversity has brought new challenges, particularly in communicating a common story and mission in order to drive our churches out of independence and into cooperation and collaboration.

Southern Baptists Are Stronger Together

The SBC has some essential threads that hold us together in the midst of our great diversity in styles, preferences, forms, structures, doctrine and polity. Our SBC strength is in the tightly woven fabric of local, state, and national expressions of Southern Baptist life and missions. Each plays a vital role in making us stronger.

Danger of Denominational Deconstruction

What we have inherited will not last if we offend God in our dealings with Him and with others, or if we choose to walk in arrogance and pride. If He is not pleased with us, the hand of God can tear down the walls of our mission efforts, only to rebuild around us. What is dismantled in the organizational deconstruction of Southern Baptist life may never be put back together again.

Resourcing His Mission

By working together at the local, state, and national levels, mostly by means of a cooperative spirit and the Cooperative Program, Southern Baptists have been able to maintain a self-regenerating system of missions support both financially and in terms of personnel. Local SBC leaders have planted daughter churches carrying their DNA. These efforts have included both the funding and the sending of missionaries in a truly cooperative manner.

However, when national entities own and rule all things church planting among the non-Southern states, the SBC DNA is not inherited from the mother church. Thus, the national agency has to infuse it. I have little to no hope that this will happen. The methods being used dismantle and discredit state and local ministries, assuming federal ownership of these mission fields while hindering these regional efforts. Instead of NAMB owning this mission, we need strong churches and even weak, imperfect ones to own it. NAMB should encourage and resource local and regional leaders to help them be more fruitful in their assignment. In fact, it is NAMB’s assignment to do so. NAMB should merely add fuel to the efforts already being led by state leaders and local leaders on the ground. It is a poor strategy to attempt to build nationally that which was already in place regionally and locally.

In two previous articles, I addressed the roles of local, state, and national SBC entities:
Dealing with Decline: The Future of Southern Baptist Cooperation

All funds and missionaries are local. No denominational organization has resources that are not generated through our local churches. Disproportionately, both the Cooperative Program and the mission outposts called churches, have been supported by small and mid-size congregations. These churches have invested in SBC life and missions generously and remarkably, starting numerous daughter congregations even before our propaganda machine made it seem cool or popular.

Southern Baptists became the largest Protestant denomination in North America without a large national structure or a national media campaign. For that matter, we didn’t have the personal computer or the internet either. Local Baptists took responsibility for advancing the gospel, evangelizing their neighborhoods and starting churches. Remember, each of our 47,000 plus churches WAS STARTED. In a study I completed in 1989, I traced the historical SBC roots of church planting.

Taxes and Kings without an Army

All resources in the SBC originate in the pockets of local churches and their members. Instead of a societal system, Southern Baptists chose generations ago to cooperate and unite for the greater good. What is happening (and has been happening for many years now) is that we are becoming more societal in our approach. We have the IMB, NAMB, ERLC, 6 seminaries, State Conventions, and local Associations all seeking to garner support for their individual body part at the expense of the overall body.

Powerful kings have armies to keep the peace in the land and to collect the taxes. In fact, this is one of the reasons the Pharisees opposed Jesus and used the Roman government to kill Him. The Romans wanted peace in order to collect taxes, and they used the religious leaders to do accomplish this end. The Jewish leaders were threatened by Jesus’s life and message, so they plotted to kill Him.

Southern Baptist appear to be crowning kings. But, these SBC kings will not have the power to send out armies to keep the peace and collect the taxes from the local churches. All SBC gifts are voluntary. We simply must find a different and better way.

Great Commission Resurgence Impact

Without casting aspersions on GCR Task Force members or their motives, I believe the application of elements of the GCR have damaged the essential fibers of the SBC. There is less trust and goodwill than before. We have weakened the local and regional ties in favor of national ties and ministries. We are more in the news, but this news has not been good, based on our results in the field. Some leaders have said the primary objective of the GCR was to redistribute money and power. Clearly, we are less effective in our cooperative missions engagements. Generally, the GCR redistributed SBC mission funds (from state to national and from national to international) and championed a nationalistic approach to the church planting focus by NAMB. Today, we are experiencing much less responsiveness and support for local and regional strategies. My lenses have been focused on the work in North America through local, state and NAMB leaders, so I would expect there to be some benefits regarding certain components of this strategy which I have simply not seen or attempted to examine for this project.

Essential Elements of SBC Partnership Now and in the Future

All non-profits, including churches, denominations, and entities, are built on trust and goodwill. When these are damaged, we are weaker, and when they cease to exist, so does the nonprofit organization. In spite of the loud enthusiasm being heard in certain quarters, the reality is that we have gunpowder spread all over the SBC because of the violations of trust and goodwill by our NAMB leadership and the tactics used to execute their objectives.

If the SBC and NAMB is to be rebuilt, it will require our trust and goodwill, our mutual interdependence, and our spirit of respectful and selfless cooperation. The “cool factor,” great public relations, and the buying of favors using the money of small and mid-size congregations is not sustainable. The SBC will eventually be only as strong as the local relationships, not the relationships of a few select churches with national agency heads or even the national agencies themselves. For now, NAMB leaders are operating on the goodwill and trust of the past. They are relying on the blind faith and financial resources of faithful and generous Southern Baptists. We are not pursuing strategies that inspire more people to be loyal to our SBC values. We must earn their loyalty through the manner in which we conduct ourselves.

Ways In Which our Partnership has been Enhanced

Under the New NAMB and the GCR, there is no meaningful way in which our partnership has been enhanced. Yes, we have some good public relations. Yes, we have created a “cool” factor around NAMB and church planting. Some are seeking to engage younger pastors. However, we have abandoned some SBC entity partners and are actually shooting arrows at them as “bloated bureaucracies” or lesser partners. It is often as if we are fighting over the last meal, seeking survival at the national level at the decimation of the local and state expressions. However, local and state ties are more important than national ties over the long haul. Local and state expressions in SBC life are more important to our mission efforts than national entities. Chronologically, the national entity was the last to be created. The rationale was that some group must exist to assist local associations and state conventions until these organizations were established in new regions.

Ways in Which our Partnership Has Been Damaged

Trust and Goodwill

Several articles document concerns related to NAMB’s centralization efforts. The New NAMB has changed, ignored, and violated Strategic Partnership Agreements and budget agreements with State Conventions multiple times over the last 5 years. They have taken these actions almost at their sole discretion, even when confronted. Some state leaders do not believe Dr. Ezell and NAMB will honor their word. Rather, they fear these leaders will change their approach on a dime, and then expect state leaders to take the hit as they work it out locally with churches and associations.

Several articles have made accusations against Dr. Ezell regarding shortcomings in his character with regard to lying, bullying, false accusations, putting gag orders and making threats to those who verbalize opposition to him or NAMB’s approaches. In full disclosure, I have documented his actions against me and the MD/DE Baptist Convention that resulted in the filing of a lawsuit against him and NAMB for libel and interference with my working relationship with the MD/DE Convention.

Because Dr. Ezell used SBC money to interfere with my leadership in Maryland-Delaware, resulting in my subsequent termination, the message was sent loud and clear to all other small and mid-size state conventions without him having to say a word. Who then would dare to communicate the failings in evangelism or church planting or dare to oppose anything at NAMB? My journey to examine the related issues began thirty years ago in a History of SBC Evangelism PhD seminar and continues until today.

In the South, state and local leaders conduct their ministries with only a small degree of influence from any of NAMB’s actions. These Conventions give sacrificially to support the “all-in” church planting strategy that was based on statistical deception regarding evangelistic effectiveness. I addressed this in the third article on NAMB: Church Planting. Outside the South, NAMB’s defunding of Associations and DOMS left a bitter taste in the mouths of pastors and local Associational leaders. State leaders were also impacted and are trying to help recover from the 2012 NAMB defunding of DOMs in Associations.

Some temporary goodwill is being purchased with NAMB resources and the filling of some positions at NAMB and around the country. However, unfortunately, this may not last after the funds stop flowing. While some NAMB-Ezell friends and friendlies have been placed in select state convention openings and other key roles, trust is at a remarkably low level. No one wants to admit it. No one wants it to be this way. But this is the way it is.

Mutual Interdependence

A cord of three strands is not easily broken. One cord can be easily broken to detriment of the whole. Not perfectly, but throughout the history of the SBC since the inception of the Cooperative Program in 1925 (to prevent what is happening now), Southern Baptist local, regional and national leaders designed the CP to share a mutual interdependence in funding our mission.

The New NAMB pulled the support system out from under DOMs and Associations outside the South in 2012 when they defunded their work. Prior, NAMB assisted with local ministry by providing SBC entrusted resources to the State Conventions, which in turn reinvested into local ministers and mission efforts. The mutual interdependence was clear to all involved. But, the current centralization efforts created a situation where each entity must look to its own interest, not the interest of the SBC whole.

As of 2012, Southern State Convention leaders voluntarily accepted a new Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) with NAMB by sacrificing millions of state dollars to additionally support national and international efforts. NAMB reinvested $300,000 in each state, while NAMB received millions and tens of millions from each of those state conventions. However, the cross learning and partnership that had historically existing between the Southern states staff and NAMB staff came to something close to a screeching halt. NAMB is learning less from Southern state leaders who are in the field and the Southern states are less connected to NAMB in partnership and setting directions and priorities. Significant losses over the long-haul.

For Associations, NAMB directed (virtually) State DOMS to remove the historic requirement to give to their local missions/Association from the church planting agreements. This applied to all church plants receiving SBC funding. Should a local SBC church member who gives to their church and Annie Armstrong not be able to expect that those receiving the funds would also pay it forward by reinvesting in local SBC missions?

Louisiana Message Editor Will Hall reported in an article on Oct. 5, 2015 that designated giving annually has passed Cooperative Program giving. The message is clear, SBC will count it as Great Commission Giving if you designate giving to an entity, so CP is less important. The message was also clear with the hiring of our latest entity heads. There is not a standard or minimum investment prerequisite to steward millions in SBC resources. This is not a reflection of passion, but of value. What is important gets rewarded, and that sets values for the next generation.

Spirit of “Others First” Cooperation

As noted above, the developing spirit is to look to the interest of part, not the whole, which does not bode well for the future. NAMB has damaged the spirit of cooperation with their strategies, tactics and use of financial resources. NAMB created the new 2014 SPA that favored them and hurt regional and local ministries. More than once NAMB would send down edicts or new policies or procedures created in Alpharetta with little or no input, leaving local leaders to carry it out. The 2012 SPA required both NAMB and the State Executive Directors to physically sign off on changes, but NAMB leadership lapses in following that requirement in the agreement. In my situation, they lied to our MD/DE leadership and falsely accused me of violating the SPA, when in fact, I never even saw or signed off on the new hiring procedures. When confronted, a NAMB VP refused to correct his false accusations that made me appear to be uncooperative.

On the large scale, NAMB’s actions are destroying or has destroyed a spirit of true cooperation. Strong-arming, coercion, threats and the like are NOT cooperation. SBC entities are sister organizations. We do not have a hierarchy. When this is damaged among the entities, it is sure to impact the trust and goodwill of local leaders who own all the resources, financial and human.

Select Strategy Concerns Regarding Partnership under the New NAMB

NAMB is forging new partnership with non-SBC agencies and networks. While this could be helpful on some fronts, we cannot operate under the belief historic Baptist principles, practices, doctrine and mission support will follow those partnerships.
NAMB is seeking to plant churches through churches directly instead of funding through state and local leaders who are closer to the planters and the mission field. On the surface, this appears to be a good thing, but not without long-term dangers.
How long will small and mid-size congregations continue to fund NAMB and then have NAMB give it to large and mega churches to plant churches? A reverse Robin Hood if perceived, will impact CP giving.
Are large and mega churches positioned and have the breadth of experience to replace local and state training and support for the planters?
If churches are planted and disconnected from the local Association and State Convention, will they continue to support and fund them and CP after their funding is stopped? How does this impact future CP support?
How long will small and mid-size congregations continue to invest sacrificially when they see little to nothing redirected to assist them in carrying out their mission assignment? There are 35,000 churches averaging less than 500 (30,000 under 200). These churches give 65% of all funds to the CP.
NAMB strategies and tactics have negatively impacted Associations and State Conventions outside the south. Are Southern Baptist missions efforts long-term better served without healthy local and regional ministries? Or, are Southern Baptists better served with a limited national missions agency and stronger local and regional ties and entities?
NAMB actually duplicates what happens at the local and state levels. Ideally NAMB would use funds from mostly the South and human expertise at the national level to resource local and state strategies, not nationalize or centralize our missions efforts. The historic functions NAMB performed that are not happening at local and state levels are (1) National Crossover in June, (2) National Response Center (if still operational), and (3) Appointments of Military chaplains. Southern Baptist have been ground up, not national down.
Some Non-Southern local and regional leaders have gathered that NAMB believes Non-Southern are inadequate (“C and D players”). Signal being gathered…NAMB knows best for their field.
Centralization of missions money and power makes the SBC more vulnerable to poor leadership or strategies. It also provides greater temptation to misuse the power and the money. When NAMB funded more of its work through the State Conventions, there was less temptation to buy influence, threaten those who differ, or direct large sums of money to individuals in the field without local and regional accountability.
Naturally locals have more concern and support for what they have some hand in designing, directing and overseeing, than in what NAMB does. NAMB’s nationalization of church planting away from State Conventions and local Associations has numerous pitfalls, which is why I opposed it and our BCMD Board originally opposed it until Ezell tied SBC money to my removal.
The 2014 NAMB SPA with small and mid-size state conventions breads dependence and apathy, not incentives and encouragements to become self-supporting and self-governance. The story of how to catch a herd of pigs seems to be what is taking place across some parts of the SBC.

Tough Time Realities

In tough times, a band of brothers is stronger than large armies of mercenaries. Men fight in war for country, but when the bullets are flying, fighting for the man beside you in the foxhole who is also fighting for you help to keep one in the fight. So true in denominational life too. We can cheer and celebrate national things, but what happens locally is more important.

Conclusion – SBC Groanings

A long-tenured national leader declared, “partnership is dead in the SBC”. He, I and I am sure you, all hope he is wrong. However, groanings deep inside SBC life are indicating that walls may be beginning to crumble. The violations of trust and good will among and between SBC entities and Southern Baptists to their local, state and national agencies may not be able to be repaired. When the nationalization is fully set, and it is deep into the process, what has been dismantled and taken apart for short-term gains, will forever not be able to be put back together again. God has used the SBC, but God is not obligated to bless in the future. God help us!

Series of Articles – “Is the New NAMB Really Working”

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 3: Church Planting (Abridged Version)

drMac — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:38:25 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts

When it comes to Southern Baptist church planting, strategic matters cannot be addressed in soundbites or 140-character Tweets. One must first gain a wider and deeper understanding of the issues. I began my exploration in a PhD seminar on the History of SBC Evangelism in 1989 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I had the privilege of reviewing the dusty SBC Annuals and tracing SBC church planting from its earliest roots to determine its impact upon evangelism.

In 2010, Southern Baptists went “all-in” with church planting as our sole evangelism focus. This approach radically impacted NAMB, State Conventions, Associations, and practically everything and everyone engaged in SBC evangelism.

This essay is the third part of a series entitled The New NAMB—Is It Working? Throughout this series, we are exposing the questions being asked by NAMB as weaker questions than the better questions we are asking. Today’s “better question” is this one: What are the numbers and types of church plants and what are the evangelistic results of these plants?

Affirmations

Virtually all Southern Baptists strongly affirm the ministry of church planting, the missionary role of church planters, and the provision of reasonable measures to assess, train, and deploy planters into their mission fields. The New NAMB has brought greater awareness of these benefits, sought to engage partnering churches, and increased the overall value for church planting among SBC pastors and leaders. We are grateful and celebrate that there are plants which are impacting their local ministry contexts. Lives are being changed and the gospel is reaching new people.

Flawed Fundamental Assumption

However, this New NAMB focus on church planting was built on the statistically faulty belief that church plants are 3-4 times more effective in evangelism than established churches. The communication of this fact with baptism ratios based on membership was and continues to be either statistical ignorance or intentional deception in order to sell this approach to Southern Baptists.

The origins of this flaw are found in the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force report adopted by SBC messengers. The statistic cited above was used to convince Southern Baptists to go “all-in” with church planting. This has proven to have unintended consequences in evangelism, partnership, associations, and state conventions.

Consider the following example. An older established church averages 100 in worship, has 300 members, and baptizes ten people. A new church plant averages 100 in worship, has 50 members, and baptizes ten people. Notice the only difference is a membership of 300 for the existing church and 50 for the new plant. Using the flawed approach of the baptism-to-membership ratio, we would reason that new churches, with a ratio of 1 to 5, are performing six times better than existing churches, with a ratio of 1 to 30. However, using the legitimate comparison of the baptism-to-attendance ratio, we would reason that new church plants and existing churches are performing precisely the same, each with with a ratio of 1 to 10.

Do you see the problems caused by national leaders sharing misleading statistics with Southern Baptists? Do you see the problems caused by building an entire national strategy off of only one misleading statistic? This glaring mistake has deeply damaged large portions of the SBC and hindered our evangelistic effectiveness.

The Cost of our Flawed Strategy

The cost to adopt this approach has been enormous relationally, financially, evangelistically, and in terms of staffing and partnering with local, state and national SBC entities. As one State Executive said, “Partnership is dead in the SBC.” Terminating 37% of NAMB staff in the first eight months of Ezell’s tenure not only removed those staff members, but also removed all the relationships and goodwill they had built up through years of service to various NAMB partners at the local, state, and national levels.

The evangelistic effectiveness of Southern Baptists has been on a sharp and steady decline during the years of this emphasis. Consider just three statistics regarding our baptisms as we compare the Former NAMB Era (FNE) of 2004-2009 with the New NAMB Era (NNE) of 2010-2015.

SBC Total Baptisms declined by 13% from the FNE to the NNE.

SBC Baptisms declined by an average of 45,289 per year from the FNE to the NNE.

SBC Baptisms per church declined by an average of 18.7% during the NNE.

Under the New NAMB, each year we are investing in church planting 3.5 times more Southern Baptist dollars than we were investing under the Former NAMB—76.1 million in 2017 compared with $20.9 million in 2010. In spite of spending 3.5 times more money, the New NAMB is actually starting fewer churches per year than we were starting previously, as discussed in the next section. In 2017, the NAMB Church Planting Budget of $76.1 million is more than twelve times greater than the NAMB Evangelism Budget of 6.3 million.

Under a new project, the New NAMB is budgeting $62 million to purchase homes for church planters over a period of six years. NAMB has already purchased 89 such homes. This move into owning and managing property for planters has not been noted by this writer in the history of the SBC. In 2017 alone, the $12 million budget for purchasing church planter homes is nearly twice as much as the $6.3 million NAMB budget for evangelism.

Other costs have impacted evangelism dollars and staff. NAMB virtually eliminated all national evangelism staff specialists, defunding State Directors of Evangelism and other state evangelism staff in non-Southern states, reducing the NAMB evangelism budget from $20.6 million in 2009 to $6.3 million in 2017, and cutting off funding for various regionally effective evangelistic ministries. Previously, these jointly funded evangelism staff positions in non-southern states served both the planters and the existing churches who fund NAMB and develop missionaries serving North America.

Charting Our Decline in the Number of SBC Church Plants

The New NAMB had a church planting goal of 1,500 per year before revising it down to 1,200. However, the New NAMB has averaged 924 plants per year. During the six years prior, NAMB averaged starting 1,368 churches per year—even after adjusting downward the inflated number reported, which included not only SBC Church Plants, but also already existing Non-SBC churches who chose to affiliate with the SBC during that year. Based upon these calculations, the SBC has been planting 444 fewer churches per year in the New NAMB Era, despite our investment of 3.5 times more money.

Former NAMB Era (2004-2009) Church Plant Total—8,211

This church plant total takes into consideration an estimated 1,150 churches previously included in this total that were not really SBC Church Plants at all, but merely existing non-SBC churches that chose to affiliate with the SBC during these Former NAMB Era years.

New NAMB Era (2010-2015) Church Plant Total—5,546
This church plant total takes into consideration an estimated 1,150 churches previously included in this total that were not really SBC Church Plants at all, but merely existing non-SBC churches that chose to affiliate with the SBC during these New NAMB Era years.

Subtracting 5,546 from 8,211, we see that the SBC has planted 2,665 fewer churches in the past six years than we did in the prior six years. With much less fanfare, it appears that the Former NAMB was planting more churches with less money while still funding evangelism efforts nationally, regionally, and locally.

The New NAMB Nationalized Church Planting Strategy Results

Reduced Evangelism Funding
Reduced funding for evangelism through the local missions and ministries of our associations

Weakened SBC Ties
Weakened local SBC ties by the removal of the requirement for church plants to reinvest in local ministry through their Associations

Diminished Trust Levels
Diminished levels of trust in NAMB by pastors, DOMs and state leaders

Weakened Relationships
Weakened vital relationships and partnerships impacting local and regional ministry

Reduced Evangelistic Collaboration
Reduced collaboration and partnership with Southern state conventions including their evangelism staff and their church planting staff, resulting from the 2012 revised Partnership Agreement

New NAMB Church Planting Strategic and Tactical Problems

The New NAMB strategy employs a number of short-sighted approaches offering quicker initial results, while also leading to possible long-term negative consequences. These approaches make NAMB appear “cool” and “successful” while the underlying reality exposes this view as an illusion.

Planter Placement
The placement or approval of church planters with little regard for their contextual fit, little consideration of the cross-cultural gifts possessed by each church planter, and little effort to offer additional preparation

Satellite Campus Funding
The possible funding of the satellite campuses started by megachurches as a form of “church planting” when the megachurch views this merely as an extension of their own local church

Funding Outside Networks
The concern that NAMB is using SBC funds, in partnership with non-SBC organizations, to start churches identifying with networks and organizations not historically Southern Baptist in their values and commitments

Nationalized Control
The concern that the New NAMB, by employing anationalizedstrategy of church planting, is controlling matters at the federal level of our cooperation, to the detriment of both the church plants themselves, and the local and regional Southern Baptist partners historically lending their support and expertise from a vantage point closer to the field

Conclusion

Southern Baptists took a leap of faith with the present church planting or bust approach. We bought into the sales pitch that starting more churches would be worth it. Few Southern Baptists had any idea this approach would require the dismantling of the very fabric of the SBC—our historic relationship with state conventions and local associations. Few Southern Baptists had any idea this approach would require the cuts that have obliterated our evangelism budgets and staff at the local and state levels.

When evaluating this “all-in” approach, Southern Baptists must determine if the gain has been greater than the loss. Granted, gains have been made in publicity and enthusiasm, but these are matters of style and not substance. The fact is that in our church planting, our baptisms, and our cooperative work, we have suffered major, possibly irrevocable damages. The overall costs are too high. The benefits are too low. Southern Baptist are now much weaker in our strategies, our results and our level of trust. When we evaluate the data concerning church planting at NAMB, we can only come to one conclusion: “It is not working.”

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 3: Church Planting

drMac — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:30:28 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts - FULL VERSION OF ARTICLE

Some things cannot be addressed in a soundbite or 140 character Twitter post. The matters facing Southern Baptists churches and the increasing challenges we face demand a more thorough analysis as we evaluate our current course as Southern Baptists. One must understand wider and more deeply before seeking to evaluate or adjust strategy for an organization the size of the SBC.

My exploration of the impact of church planting began in a PhD seminar on the History of SBC Evangelism in 1989 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I had the privilege and task of reviewing the all the dusty SBC Annuals to determine, “The Impact of Church Planting on Southern Baptist Evangelism“. In the major paper I traced church planting in the SBC from its earliest roots and examined the various flavors and its impact on evangelism in the SBC.

Since 2010, Southern Baptists have gone all in with church planting as the single focus of its evangelism and mission efforts in North America. Is this single focus working in meaningful and lasting ways for Southern Baptists? That questions is one of several questions that deserve to be explored? While there are some positive results there are also major concerns as well, particularly on the impact on evangelism results now and in the future.

A flawed foundational statistic was used to justify the “all in” and single focus strategy. The same flawed statistic continues to be misused to convince Southern Baptists to support and fund the New NAMB approach to the neglect of all other approaches to helping churches evangelize North America. There are a number of great reasons to start new churches, but basing the focus on the statistical lie that church planting is 3 to 4 more effective in evangelism is not it.

NAMB President Ezell once again misused the statistic of membership to baptism ratios in his proclamation to Southern Baptists “It Is Working” in June 2016 in St. Louis. He communicated to Southern Baptist the baptisms to membership ratios as 1:14 for plants and 1:52 for established churches, and stated publically that the plants are making up for the lack in evangelism of established churches. He must know better.

How can I say this? In 2002, I was asked and hired by Dr. Ed Stetzer on behalf of NAMB to complete a research project on “Church Planting as an Evangelistic Strategy“ and report the findings back to the Former NAMB leadership. One of the requests was to compare the evangelistic effectiveness of church plants to established churches. One finding from the research was that church plants at that time had marginally better average attendance-to-baptism rates and marginally better average Sunday School attendance-to-baptism rates. I did not explore and compare the membership baptism rates because that would be a useless and unrevealing number. Baptism ratios can reasonably be based on average worship attendance or the average small group attendance, BUT NOT membership. Why? The typical SBC church has 3 times more members than average attenders and church plants typically have more attenders than members.

To see this clearly, consider the following:

An illegitimate comparison that is misleading…

Older established church – averages 100 in worship, has 300 members, baptizes 10 people. The membership baptism ratio would be 1:30 or 10 baptisms out of 300 people.
New church plant – averages 100 in worship, has 50 members, baptizes 10 people. The membership baptism ratio would be 1:5 or 10 baptisms out of 50 people.
Using this flawed approach New Churches 1:5 and Existing Churches 1:30; which is a difference of six times, but both churches are averaging 100 in worship and baptizing the same numbers of people.

A legitimate comparison

Older established church – baptism based on attendance would be 1:10
New church plant – baptism based on attendance would be 1:10

Do you see the problems of national leaders sharing misleading information with the SBC people? Building a national strategy off one primary completely misleading statistic has proven to deeply damage large portions of the SBC and our evangelism effectiveness. Additionally, its impact will be felt by Southern Baptists for decades.

For a current real life example of strategy based on flawed information, read about Elizabeth Holmes and her company Theranos. Her business was initially built on good intentions to help people around the world. Hope grew as the technology was tested, and the business exploded in growth. But later it was discovered that she had sold some of the best minds and wealthiest people in America was built on a false medical information and unattainable dream. The 33 year old’s new worth of $4.5 billion went to zero overnight and many, many people were hurt as the truth was revealed.

We are people of truth, serve a God of truth, and share the truth. It is imperative that Southern Baptists leaders tell the truth to Southern Baptists, lest our efforts come crumbling down and damage His Kingdom.

Affirmations

Virtually all Southern Baptists can agree on several affirmations. We affirm the ministry of church planting. We affirm the missionary role of church planters and their family and we should take loving and reasonable measures to assess, train, and deploy planters into fields with human and financial support, and work to connect them to local churches and others islands of health in their region for greater support.

The New NAMB has brought greater awareness of the ministry of this missionary, sought to engage partnering churches to undergird them, and increased the overall value for church planting among SBC pastors and leaders. We are grateful and celebrate that there are plants which are impacting their local ministry contexts. Lives are being changed and the gospel is spreading to new people. However, the reality is, that some of this would happen with or without local, state or national support. From a few reports being shared among guys connected to the mission field, the New NAMB approach is working in some church planting, but there are others where it is reportedly not going well at all for the plants themselves or the local associations as redundant tracks are being built which is creating more confusion.

Planting Statistics and Facts

Dr. Ezell stated that the New NAMB had a church planting goal of 1,500 plants per year that was restated to the SBC in 2013. During the last six years under his tenure, the New NAMB has averaged 924 plants per year. On Feb. 8, 2016 Dr. Ezell publicly revised the goal to 1,200 plants per year in his presentation to NAMB Trustees. The average number of plants for the six years prior to the New NAMB was 1,368 after adjusting the number down for the average number of churches who became a part of the SBC by affiliation, not new starts. Using the numbers we have and adjustments down, the SBC is still seeing 444 less churches per year started during the last 6 years compared to the 6 prior years.

Dr. Ezell has claimed that it is impossible to compare the number of plants in the New NAMB to the number of plants in the Former NAMB. One of his concerns about past reporting is the possible duplication in counting and that new plants were not required to receive their unique SBC ID number. Another concern related to the number of affiliating churches that could have been reported in the pre-2010 reporting of new SBC congregations. However, in my calculations, I took into account one of the major factors, that of churches which have affiliated with the SBC as a church, but was not started by the SBC. In comparing the last six years to the six years prior to the New NAMB, I reduced the number of churches reported in the SBC Annual (Baptism and Plants 2004-2015) by the average on a per year basis.

2004-2009 8,211 (9,361 reported minus an estimated affiliated 1,150)

2010-2016 5,546 (reported church starts, also reported affiliated 1,150)

2,665 less churches reported started during last 6 years than prior 6 yrs.

I do not know the church plants Dr. Ezell is contesting prior to his becoming President. Not knowing how to calculate an allowance for them, I share the best figures I can calculate with an allowance for churches that are affiliated, but not started in 2004-2009. On average, it appears the SBC is starting some 444 less churches each of the last years, while spending initially two times more money and now 3.5 times more money than the Former NAMB used to start more churches. It is possible that Dr. Ezell can make a case for some differences in the calculations of church plants in prior years without SBC ID numbers, but I suspect he cannot account for the some 2,665 less churches even after an allowance of 191 per year for possible affiliation instead of being newly started. With less fanfare, it appears that the Former NAMB was planting more churches with less money and still funding evangelism efforts nationally, regionally and locally.

Ideally church plants are started with focus on evangelizing lost segments of society. Southern Baptists should be reluctant to fund church starts to provide Christians with a new church that is more to their liking.

In 2007 Dr. Ed Stetzer while working at NAMB conducted a study on 2000 church plants started between 2000 and 2005 in 12 different denominations and networks. In surveys with 500 of those churches, he discovered a membership baptism ratio of 1:5 for churches during their first four years (p. 16 above study). Dr. Ezell reported in recent SBC church plants to be 1:14. The membership baptism ratios are 65% worse in the SBC than the ratios discovered by Dr. Stetzer on plants in his study.

A better way to compare the currently known data and accurately reflect reality would be to say that new church baptism ratios to members is 1:14, while all 47,000 churches in the SBC have baptism ratios to average attendance of 1:19. As new research is completed on baptisms to average worship attendance in new churches, appearances are that the differences in new and established churches will only show small differences in ratios.

It thus appears that already existing local churches are a significant factor in evangelism, with new church plants only slightly more effective. Therefore, helping them with evangelism may be a significant way to bring people to Christ.

Yet Southern Baptists dismantled their entire multi-faceted approach to evangelizing and disciplining North America based primarily on the belief in a statistical lie that church plants were 3 to 4 times more effective in evangelism.

Financial Matters

The New NAMB is investing 3.5 times more SBC dollars per year into church planting the last year of the Former NAMB: 76.1 million in church planting in 2017, compared to $20.9 million in 2010 (p. 294). By any thoughtful look at the numbers, we are spending 3.5 times more and actually getting less church starts each year. At the same time we have virtually eliminated NAMB evangelism staff specialists, defunding State Directors of Evangelism and other state evangelism staff who were there to assist both new and existing churches, reduced the evangelism budget to 5% of the New NAMB’s annual budget, and removed focus and funding for various regional effective evangelistic ministries. The church planting budget ($76.1 million) is over 12 times more than the budget for Evangelism ($6.3 million) in 2017. (see Financial Management p. 1) This means 43,000 existing churches of the total 47,000 churches that have had a 1:19 attendance to baptism ration are receiving little to no help with evangelism. Instead, the vast majority of funds are being spent to start new congregations whose actual evangelism effectiveness is only slightly better than the existing churches.

Under a new project, the New NAMB is budgeting $62 million to purchase homes for church planters over about a 6 year period (see p. 2 under Financial Management). In the last published report, NAMB had purchased 89 homes (see #III). This move into owning and managing property for planters has not been seen by this writer in the history of the SBC. The 2017 budget for purchasing homes for church planters ($12 million) is twice as much as the entire NAMB budget for evangelism ($6.3 million)

Church Planting Targets

Southern Baptist historically have planted churches with the DNA embedded from the mother or sponsoring church. This would have included a commitment to similar doctrine, governance, and a cooperative form of mission advance through the Cooperative Program. Since we are planting churches in radically different places and seeking to reach into new subsets of people groups, we need to be clear on the essentials we are trying to instill into the DNA of the new church.

The SBC should steward the resources of Southern Baptists by investing in church plants which have or develop

Evangelistic heart and effectiveness
Planter/pastor that is equipped and supported by local relationships
Capacity to be self-supporting, self-governing, self-determining
Commitment to the Baptist Faith and Message
Long-term commitment to a cooperative spirit and funding of missions as a stewardship of the investments made into the plant
Connected to and invested in the various expressions of the SBC ecosystem: local, state, and national
Intentionality and effectiveness in developing disciples who are then engaged with community impact for Christ

Unknowns but Vital

To better evaluate the effectiveness of the New NAMB strategy it would be very helpful to discover two pieces of information that are currently unknown from a reliable source.

The first is survivability rates of the new church plants. Church planting is both an art and science with some unique challenges to its growth and sustainability. In the absence of access to current and reliable survivability rates, I can only relay that I have been told that the survivability rate of plants during the New NAMB is similar to the reported national averages in all denominations which is around 68% at the four year mark.

Another unknown is the long-term commitment of the new plants to essential values and practices of past generations of SBC churches and plants. The challenges in this area are increased because of our approaches to church plants and the North American culture in which we are planting.

Strategy and Tactical Concerns

The following are possible concerns related to the strategies and tactics being used by the New NAMB

Short-sighted Approaches — It appears that we are using tactics that produce quicker results, result in NAMB looking “cool” and successful but have long-term negative consequences.
- Placing and/or approving planters to ministry fields that are far removed from their past contexts of living and ministering without examining these issues, preparing the planter and his family, and without connecting them to adequate local churches and leaders of healthy churches in surrounding areas. This will result in more planting failures, which damage not only the planter and his family, but also reflects negatively on all parts of the SBC family to all the individuals and churches which partnered with and supported the planter.
- Funding satellite campuses of some mega churches. Danger lies in the growing belief that the faithful CP giving of smaller and mid-size churches is being taken and then redistributed back to mega churches who plant campuses around them that in turn not reach lost people, but reach the church members of those small and mid-size congregations.
- Partner with (not sure all that it entails) with historically non-SBC churches to plant churches. I assume this means that SBC funds are being used to start churches who primarily relate to and are committed to non-SBC entities and mission efforts. Such known partnerships include: Harvest Bible Chapel, Acts 29, McLean Bible Church and most probably several others. I don’t know if we are counting them as SBC church plants for our records, but it would be worth inquiring of a NAMB Trustee.

A Nationalistic Approach and Devaluing of Local and State Partners
- Setting policies, practices, assessment requirements, training programs, and the like from Alpharetta far from the mission fields. The Former NAMB typically worked to supplement local and regional strategies around common objectives with NAMB.In the past we operated from the assumption that pastors and leaders on the local field would best know their needs. The new approach means that officials at a far distance are assuming that they best know the local needs. This is a significant shift for us.
- Employing church planting staff that works in various states beside the non-Southern state conventions, but come under the selection, supervision, and support of the New NAMB – not the State Convention.
- Directing all things church planting from Alpharetta, instead of being responsive to state and regional priorities and processes that fit their context and are connected to and held accountable by local pastors and churches.
- The 2014 removal of the historic requirement of church plants who are receiving SBC funds to reinvest into the local association of churches and missions around them. When questioned, NAMB leadership said, “they need to earn theirs” with “they” referring associations and the DOMS who serve the local churches.
- Defunding of partial funding of DOMs in non-Southern states in 2012 with the new partnership and budget agreements with state conventions.
- Reported some if not all state Executive Directors have been informed that NAMB plans to fly all planters to Alpharetta for “orientation”. For the first time in the history of NAMB, the money and time is being spent to connect the planters directly to NAMB rather than the ministry at the local and state levels.
- NAMB is beginning to inform some non-Southern State Executive Directors that when the State DOM positions open up, NAMB intends to not replace them because that is an “antiquated” role. NAMB will select the next leader and will be eliminating the SDOM position, and requiring the new hire to be involved directly with two church plants. Reportedly there was no reply from NAMB to one Exec. Director who expressed concerns about the other and wider duties of the SDOM outside of church planting.

Financial Matters
- Lack of local and regional financial controls and accountabilities with money entrusted at the national level for local ministry. Stewardship of SBC resources is best closer to the field and closer to local accountability
- NAMB leadership stewards a $120 million annual budget in addition to $320 million in net assets to strong-arm, reward, punish and use to purchase goodwill and favors. This money used to be entrusted primarily to state leaders and staff who then were under the authority of local pastors and churches.
- Funding directly to more church plants and/or their sponsoring churches, when historically the funding for planters/plants almost exclusively went through the state conventions. The direct funding fosters loyalty to the New NAMB, but not to the Southern Baptist Associations and State Conventions.

Trust of NAMB
- Selective following of Strategic Partnership Agreements (SPA) with State Conventions
  - Violating, ignoring and changing the terms of SPA has and will continue to erode trust if it continues.
  - See my article on “Going Going Gone, Sold: Essential Elements of SBC Mission Efforts — Major Changes in the Latest NAMB/State Convention Cooperative Agreements Shift SBC Ecology”
- Nationalistic approaches are eroding local trust and eroding local engagement and responsibility in non-Southern states

Conclusion

Southern Baptists took a leap of faith with Dr. Ezell and in the New NAMB in 2010. They bought into the sales pitch that starting more churches was worth it. Do you think they knew it would come at the expense of dismantling vital aspects the fabric of the SBC and virtually dismantling the entire budget and staffing priorities in evangelism nationally and at the local and state levels?

Statistically, the New NAMB in keeping with the Great Commission Resurgence were sold a lie, that church plants were so valuable and would be so effective in evangelism, that selling all other things NAMB and SBC partnership was worth it. I believe this blind leap of faith based on a statistical lie has damaged the SBC in remarkable seen and unseen ways in the future.

Southern Baptists must determine if the gain has been greater than the loss with this “all-in” and single focused strategy to reach North America with the gospel. While some gains in publicity and enthusiasm has been achieved, the planting, baptism, and impact on the cooperative work and partnership has suffered major, irrecoverable losses. The overall costs are too high, the benefits too low, and Southern Baptist are weaker in strategic ways and in essential trust.

It might seem that turning back the clock would be best. But, that is not an option for SBC leaders who must guide the SBC out of this blind jump into the unproven and damaging approach to growing our human and financial mission base. Southern Baptist church members and churches desire better stewardship of their national missions agency.

Series of Articles – “Is the New NAMB Really Working”

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 2 – Baptisms (Abridged Version)

drMac — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:11:48 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts in the Reporting of SBC Baptism Results

At the 2016 SBC Annual Meeting, when Dr. Kevin Ezell presented a report from the North American Mission Board entitled It’s Working, he was referring to the implementation of NAMB’s new strategy over the past six years. However, his version of the storyline does not match the facts. Is It Working? The answer to this question is a resounding “no”. The baptism data supports such a conclusion. Baptisms per church have declined 18.7% during Ezell’s six year tenure.

Purpose of NAMB

Evangelism is the major purpose for NAMB. Church planting is now the primary chosen strategy to accomplish this purpose. According to Ezell, “NAMB’s primary reason for existence is to help Southern Baptists reach North America for Christ. That is the mission that runs through everything that we do.” (It’s Working, June 15, 2016) Evangelistic strategies should be driving the New NAMB and the results seen in baptisms. Planting new churches is not the ultimate mission—helping churches to be more effective in evangelism is the mission.

Key stats

While Southern Baptists are reporting 70 year lows in baptisms, any evaluation of results must consider the evangelistic effectiveness of the New NAMB and compare it with that of the Former NAMB. Every typically reported statistic is worse the last six years compared to the previous six years when NAMB had a diverse approach to evangelism, a healthy budget and national staff focused on evangelism, were jointly funding state evangelism staff members, and had the entire North America in their view. Three statistics of note among many others reveal the real status of our evangelism effectiveness. From 2009 to 2015 Annual Church Profile…

SBC Total Baptisms have an average decline of 45,289 per year during the New NAMB and that number is growing each year
SBC Baptisms have declined by 13% during the New NAMB
Including all 47,000+ churches, the average decline in baptisms of 18.7% per church

NAMB is not solely responsible for the evangelistic results of the SBC. However, we should thoroughly examine these results in light of the complete dismantling of their evangelism staff, and in light of their complete rejection of our historic approaches to evangelism. In lieu of these time-honored ministries, the New NAMB has adopted church planting as virtually the only approach to “help Southern Baptists reach North America.”

New NAMB Actions Crippling Evangelism

We have already seen that baptisms are in a steady and significant decline in the SBC under the direction of the NEW NAMB. Any serious exploration into the possible causes requires an investigation into the specific measures taken by NAMB over the past six years which may have contributed to these steep declines in baptisms. In stark contrast to the approach taken by the Former NAMB, the NEW NAMB took the following specific actions that significantly weakened SBC evangelism.

Massive National Force Reduction
The New NAMB terminated some 37% staff members at the national headquarters within months of Dr. Ezell’s employment, including virtually all of the evangelism staff who focused on leading, training, and engagement on the ground in evangelism.
Massive Budget Cuts in Evangelism
The New NAMB reduced the funds committed to evangelism from $20.6 million to $6.3 million. Today, out of the 2017 $76 million annual church planting budget, NAMB is spending $12 million to purchase homes for church planters while only budgeting $6.34 million for evangelism. Additionally, the six-year housing purchase project will spend $62 million in total for housing for planters.
Church Planting Tunnel Vision
The New NAMB is focused almost exclusively on 4,000 church plants in 32 cities while under-resourcing the 43,000 existing SBC churches in evangelism who have the missionary force and funding inside their walls, along with an established presence.
Massive State Evangelism Defunding
In 2014, the New NAMB revised the 2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) by defunding all evangelism staff positions jointly funded by NAMB for decades in the 25 non-Southern state conventions. These positions included State Directors of Evangelism, other state evangelism staff, and the Baptist Collegiate Ministries staff evangelizing American and International students on college campuses.

Let’s evaluate the cumulative impact upon evangelism of the four catastrophic initiatives mentioned above. The New NAMB strategy has (a) practically eliminated its entire evangelism division, (b) slashed its evangelism budget by nearly 70%, (c) narrowed its focus to 8.5%of our churches and 0.2% of our cities, and (d) abandoned its historic commitment to assist sparsely populated state conventions with the resources necessary to employ evangelistic staff. Does it not stand to reason that evangelism in the SBC was bound to suffer as a direct result of these New NAMB initiatives? This summary of the New NAMB strategy crippling evangelism raises important questions.

Appraising the New NAMB Rationale and Comparisons

Southern Baptists were told that church planting would become the primary focus of the New NAMB because it is the most effective evangelism strategy. Early NAMB press releases indicated that church plants were three to four times more effective in evangelism than established churches. This information was remarkably false and misleading, yet it was used to justify the radical changes made by the New NAMB and continues to be shared by our NAMB President in his claim that “it is working”.

There are two legitimate methods to compare the baptism ratios of church plants to existing churches based on either average worship attendance or average small group participation, and based on these approaches the evangelistic differences between new and existing churches is small. To compare new to existing churches based on membership is inexcusable. Also of note, current SBC church plants are dramatically less evangelistically effective than the churches studied by NAMB in 2007.

Southern Baptists were sold an evangelism dismantling strategy for a focus exclusively on church planting that was based on statistical ignorance or guile. Southern Baptists were and are being misled. Dr. Ezell’s 1:14 ratio for plants to 1:52 ratio for existing churches based on membership may be statistically accurate, but completely faulty and misleading. Baptism in all churches is 1:18.8 based on the infinitely more telling average attendance.

Additional Strategic Evangelism Pitfalls

1. Discussed Church Probation Policy

Instead of expressing concern, proposing possible aids or assuming some measure of responsibility for the declining baptism rates, Dr. Ezell communicated in at least two public settings his belief “that if you don’t baptize no one in two years, we should put them on probation and eventually kick them out.” He stated those churches were “bad advertisement” instead of helping to equip the pastors who fund NAMB in evangelism.

2. Exclusive Focus on Unreceptive Areas

The New NAMB strategy is focused on reaching people groups that are hardest to reach, located in the most unreached areas, and comprised of the people most unreceptive to the gospel. We are often sending in planters with little experience in ministry or demonstrated cross-cultural giftings or fruitful ministry. Meanwhile, we are practically abandoning the places and people who were being reached with the missionaries and methods previously utilized.

3. Heavily Investing in Isolated Urban Ministry

The New NAMB invested all evangelism resources into church planting among the largest unchurched cities to the exclusion of virtually all other approaches to impacting lostness in North America. The New NAMB destablized local and state support systems by defunding and pulling the requirement that church plants receiving SBC funds reinvest into local associations. Often church planters are moved into mission contexts that are both radically different than their own without proven cross-cultural ministry effectiveness or equipping for cross-cultural minsitry.

4. Dismantling Four Layers of SBC Cooperation

History reveals that Southern Baptists accomplish more when we work together from the national, state, association and local church levels—not when a national organization picks a strategy for the day and forces it upon state conventions, associations, and local churches. The New NAMB leaders are making decisions leading to or hastening the dismantling of the ecosystem of SBC life. As mentioned above the New NAMB has defunded and removed the historic requirement of planters to reinvest in their association, and moved to a more nationalistic approach in the 2014 version of the Strategic Partnership Agreements with the state conventions.

Conclusion

SBC baptisms have been on a steady decline for sixteen full years—marking the first time in SBC history that we have ever observed such a slide. Southern Baptists need the cart and the horse, but the New NAMB strategy has put the cart before the horse. Evangelism must be the leading edge, not the trailing edge operating on leftover human and financial resources. The New NAMB has become more effective in public relations and less effective in evangelism. The cold hard facts reveal that Southern Baptists are doing a historically poor job of evangelizing North America. We are not in need of a spin zone, but a reality check and a different strategic direction. It is not working.

Is the New NAMB Really Working? Part 2 – Baptisms (Full Version)

drMac — Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:20:34 +0000

Separating Spin from Facts in the Reporting of SBC Baptism Results

Is It Working? The answer to this question is a resounding “no” in light of the evangelistic results actually reported by SBC churches and church plants. While this is certainly not the kind of news anyone wishes to hear, the data nevertheless supports such a conclusion, which may explain why certain facts were either missing or misused in Dr. Ezell’s report. Baptisms per church have declined 18.7% during Ezell’s six year tenure.

This essay is the second part of a series entitled Is the New NAMB Working? In the first part, the questions asked and answered by Dr. Ezell in his report were exposed as weaker questions than the better questions we are asking and answering in this series. Today’s “better question” is this one: How are Southern Baptists doing in evangelism as seen in baptism reports and in correlating comparisons under the New NAMB?

Our Evangelistic Mission

Evangelism is the major purpose for NAMB. Church planting is reportedly the primary strategy to accomplish this purpose. According to Ezell, “NAMB’s primary reason for existence is to help Southern Baptists reach North America for Christ. That is the mission that runs through everything that we do.” (It’s Working, June 15, 2016)

Evangelistic strategies should be driving the New NAMB. These strategies reveal the measure of their effectiveness by resulting in baptisms. Planting new churches is not the ultimate mission—helping churches to be more effective in evangelism is the mission.

Our Evangelistic Results

According to an analysis of data reported in Southern Baptist Annual Church Profiles, we can draw the following conclusions by comparing our last year under the Former NAMB with our most recent year under the New NAMB:

Our baptisms per member have declined—1 to 46 in 2009 and 1 to 52 in 2015.
Our baptisms per attender have declined—1 to 18 in 2009 and 1 to 19 in 2015.
Our baptism total has declined to a 70-year low—345,737 in 2009 and 295,212 in 2015.

Declining Baptism Results Under New NAMB

New NAMB Era (NNE) vs. Former NAMB Era (FNE)

The evangelism statistics below compare the results of the past six available years (2010-2015) under the New NAMB with the results of the previous six years (2004-2009) under the Former NAMB. Under the leadership and strategies of the New NAMB, one seemingly positive result is that the total number of SBC churches did increase by 2.3%. We might assume such a result would increase our evangelism. However, when we analyze the statistics reported in the Annual Church Profiles during each era, this is simply not the case at all. In fact, as we compare the results of the New NAMB Era (NNE) with the Former NAMB Era (FNE), we discover the following:

SBC Total Baptisms declined by 13% from the last 6 years FNE to the 6 years of NNE.
SBC Baptisms declined by an average of 45,289 per year from the FNE to the NNE.
SBC Baptisms declined by an average of 18.7% per church from 2009 (FNE) to 2015 (NNE).

Dr. Chuck Kelley, President of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, is widely known for his research and teaching on the history evangelism in the SBC. During a 2016 presentation, Dr. Kelley noted, “Southern Baptists are closer to losing the South than we are to reaching North America. If we lose the South, eventually, we lose everything.” (Is This a Great Commission Regression? NOBTS Chapel, January 19, 2016) Kelley later stated, “Lostness in North America is having a bigger impact on Southern Baptists than Southern Baptists are having on lostness.”

New NAMB Actions Crippling Evangelism

We have already seen that baptisms are in a steady and significant decline in the SBC under the leadership of the New NAMB. Any serious exploration into the possible causes requires an investigation into the specific measures taken by NAMB over the past six years which may have contributed to these steep declines in baptisms. In stark contrast to the approach taken by the Former NAMB, the New NAMB took the following specific actions significantly weakening SBC evangelism.

Massive National Force Reduction
The New NAMB terminated some 37% of the staff members at the national headquarters within months of Dr. Ezell’s employment, including virtually all of the evangelism staff. NAMB evangelism staff reductions along with cuts to evangelism staff and missionaries at the state and local level has left fewer people to engage in leading, training, and engaged on the ground with their focus on evangelism.
Massive Budget Cuts in Evangelism
The New NAMB reduced the funds committed to evangelism from $20.6 million to $6.3 million. By reducing evangelism funding to 5% of the overall $120 million budget, NAMB was able to invest 2.5 times more funds toward church planting. Today, out of this $76 million annual church planting budget, NAMB is spending $12 million to purchase homes for church planters and only $6.34 million in evangelism in 2017. This means that the New NAMB is now spending twice as much on real estate as it spends on evangelism. Additionally, the housing purchase project will spend $62 million in total for housing for planters.
Church Planting Tunnel Vision
While its assignment is to reach all of North America, the New NAMB is focused almost exclusively on 4,000 church plants while under-resourcing the 43,000 existing SBC churches in evangelism. The New NAMB suffers from tunnel vision by focusing so exclusively on only 32 cities in North America.
Massive State Evangelism Defunding
In the Former NAMB Era, and even in the early days of the New NAMB Era under the previous 2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), NAMB jointly funded multiple evangelism staff members within the 25 non-southern state conventions to assist new and existing churches in evangelism. However, in 2014, the New NAMB revised the 2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) by defunding all evangelism staff positions jointly funded by NAMB for decades. These positions included State Directors of Evangelism, other state evangelism staff, and the Baptist Collegiate Ministries staff evangelizing American and International students on college campuses. The cuts affected all of the 25 non-southern state conventions except for the Northwest Convention.

Let us pause a moment to synthesize and evaluate the cumulative impact upon evangelism of the four catastrophic initiatives mentioned above. A significant part of the New NAMB strategy has been to (a) practically eliminate its entire evangelism division, (b) slash its evangelism budget by nearly 70%, (c) narrow its focus to ten percent of our churches and 0.2% of our cities, and (d) abandon its historic commitment to assist sparsely populated state conventions with the resources necessary to employ evangelistic staff. Does it not stand to reason that evangelism in the SBC was bound to suffer as a direct result of these New NAMB initiatives?

This summary of the New NAMB strategy crippling evangelism raises a few important questions. If the New NAMB traded all of this evangelism infrastructure to accomplish something else, then what has been gained as a result of all that has been lost? What were we hoping to accomplish? What was the reason for doing all of this? And is this approach proving to be valid or invalid?

Appraising the New NAMB Rationale

Southern Baptists were told that church planting would become the primary focus of the New NAMB because church planting is the most effective evangelism strategy. Early studies were cited indicating that church plants are three to four times more effective in evangelism than established churches. This information was remarkably false and misleading, yet it was used to justify the radical changes made by the New NAMB. The study (Church Planting as an Evangelistic Strategy 2002) NAMB hired me to conduct and report on debunks the NNE claims and their rationale for making such radical changes to NAMB on behalf of all Southern Baptists.

Additionally, in 2007, Ed Stetzer conducted NAMB research and published a report entitled Research Report Church Plant Survivabilty and Health Study 2007 and powerpoint Church Planting and Survivability. Comparing Stetzer’s data with the data shared by Dr. Ezell in his 2016 SBC Annual Meeting Report entitled It’s Working, a very different picture emerges.

Declining Baptisms in Church Plants Per One Hundred Members
Church plants in the New NAMB Era report lower baptisms per one hundred members than church plants in the SBC and other denominations reported previously—20 baptisms per 100 members 2005 compared to NNE 7 baptisms per 100 members in 2015. The drop in baptisms is a staggering 65% less than churches in the study by Stetzer.
Evangelistic Effectiveness Plants vs. Established Church
In an upcoming study, church plants may be marginally more effective in evangelism when using baptism-to-attendance ratios instead of baptism-to-membership ratios. However, the difference is not nearly as pronounced as New NAMB proposals advocating the strategy that church plants are 3 to 4 times more effective– instead in 2015 1 to 14 baptism ratio for members in church plants and 1 to 19 baptism ratio on attendance for all SBC churches in 2015.
Southern Baptist Impact
Church plants under five years old represent 8.5% of our churches, and an estimated one percent of our baptisms and less than one percent of our financial contributions to Southern Baptist work.

Declining Baptism Results

Comparing Apples and Oranges

Statistics can be accurate and yet, intentionally or unintentionally, misleading. It is either guile or statistical ignorance to compare the baptism ratios of church plants to the baptism ratios of existing churches as long as the two ratios are based on membership. (Frankly, one would expect this reality to be crystal clear to Dr. Ezell when he included this information in his 2016 SBC Annual Report.)

The explanation is simple. Typically, membership in church plants is typically less than average attendance, as new seekers take time to explore the faith before trusting in Christ and joining the church. On the other hand, membership in existing SBC churches in 2015 is almost three times more than average attendance, since churches that have existed for years, in most cases, will have accumulated a list of inactive members still on the rolls, having never joined any other church. The disparity in baptism-to-membership ratios between church plants and existing churches is not due to the evangelistic success of church planting. Rather, it is due to differing membership roll tendencies.

More accurate assessments can be utilized in comparing the baptism ratios of church plants with the baptism ratios of existing churches. The best two approaches are to compare baptisms with either (a) the average worship attendance, or (b) the average small group attendance. These are the precisely the two measures I used when NAMB hired me to research, write and publish a paper comparing the baptism ratios of existing churches and church plants in 2002.

A Historic Lesson in Reporting Evangelistic Decline
In 1946, when Southern Baptists were disturbed about the declining baptism rates and bothered by a baptism-to-membership ratio of 1 to 27.6, they reported it at the SBC Annual Meeting, rather than covering it up. They were concerned about the entirety of the nation, and worked in conjunction with state conventions and local associations for greater effectiveness. Notice the humility and the burden expressed concerning the situation. Is this not the proper way to report evangelistic decline?

For more than a decade, prior to 1943, we had witnessed a gradual decline in evangelistic results. Taking the convention territory as a whole, we had dropped to the alarming average of one baptism a year for every 27.6 church members. Accordingly, as we surveyed this serious drop two years ago, and as preparations went forward for our Centennial Celebration last year, it was felt, by your committee, that we should celebrate that historic year by placing a special emphasis on soul-winning. (1946 SBC Annual Evangelism Report, p. 30)

We would further urge the organized forces of all our cooperating states to maintain an organization which will give perennial attention to the work of Evangelism. We would encourage the growing of departments of evangelism wherever practical, in all the States, and as full correlation and cooperation as possible between these State Convention departments and the department of evangelism of the Home Mission Board, and/or its other missionary departments. (1946 SBC Annual, p. 31)

We would send forth the challenge to all our constituency to pray earnestly for revival fires among us, in congested City areas, in rural areas, everywhere throughout our territory, where Christ does not reign in all the relationships of men. Let us pray for, plan for, and expect the tides of Evangelism to rise on and upward, until his Name shall be made known to every lost soul within our Convention bounds. (1946 SBC Annual, p. 31)

Summary of Strategic Evangelism Pitfalls

Church Planting Tunnel Vision The New NAMB is almost exclusively engaged in assisting about 8.5% (4,000 church plants) out of our 47,000 SBC churches, while investing little money or personnel to assist the other 43,000 existing churches. Meanwhile, the established churches are responsible for at least 98% of the baptisms of the SBC, and provide at least 99% of all funds given through the Cooperative Program and Annie Armstrong.
Proposed Church Probation Policy The New NAMB appears to be considering the controversial embrace of a pastor shaming approach to evangelistic motivation. Reportedly, Dr. Ezell communicated his current thinking leaders in St. Louis in June 2016 at a Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary panel discussion and again to State Executive Directors in February 2017 that churches who do not baptize anyone over a two-year period and are not investing in the CP should be put on probation. Ezell said, “And in my opinion, that if you don’t baptize no one in two years, we should put them on probation and eventually kick them out. I am absolutely serious. We got people wearing our uniform who are not on our team. They are bad advertisement.” Link to 4 min. video Apart from reservations regarding local church autonomy and our rejection of a ruling denominational hierarchy, Dr. Ezell’s proposal reveals an unwillingness to assume any measure of responsibility on the part of NAMB for these declining baptism rates. After practically obliterating our SBC evangelism promotion, slashing millions of dollars in evangelism budgets, and laying off hundreds of evangelism staff at both the national and state levels, Dr. Ezell explains the decline in baptisms by blaming the very pastors his organization has decided to no longer to equip for evangelism.
Defunding State Evangelism Directors The New NAMB defunded their portion of the salary and ministry budgets of State Directors of Evangelism and other state evangelism staff. This seems utter foolishness if an organization’s purpose is to reach the lost in North America.
Exclusive Focus on Unreceptive Areas The New NAMB strategy is focused on reaching the North American people groups that are hardest to reach, located in the most unreached areas, and comprised of the people most unreceptive to the gospel. While the intentions are admirable, this strategy is being implemented in cities by church planters who are often isolated and inexperienced. Meanwhile, we are practically abandoning the places and people who were being reached with the missionaries and methods previously utilized.
Heavily Investing in Isolated Urban Ministry The New NAMB foolishly invested all evangelism resources into church planting among the largest unchurched cities in North America to the exclusion of virtually all other approaches to impacting lostness in North America. This approach was taken while making decisions to defund local and state support systems, undermine by defunding local associations who are there to help support the planters, and often move planters into mission contexts that are both radically different than their own without proven cross-cultural ministry effectiveness, and without connecting with healthy churches around them.
Dismantling Four Layers of SBC Cooperation The New NAMB leaders are making decisions leading to or hastening the dismantling of the ecosystem of SBC life. History reveals that Southern Baptists accomplish more when we work together from the national, state, association and local church levels—not when a national organization picks a strategy for the day and forces it upon state conventions, associations, and local churches. As Southern Baptist have become disconnected at these four levels, even viewing some of them as unnecessary, baptisms in the SBC have been on a steady decline for sixteen full years—marking the first time in SBC history that we have ever observed such a slide.

Conclusion

With all due respect, how can we possibly conclude that in the area of evangelism, It Is Working in the Southern Baptist Convention today? The New NAMB strategy has put the cart before the horse. Evangelism must be the leading edge, not the trailing edge. It must not be an afterthought in strategy operating on leftover human and financial resources. The New NAMB has become more effective in public relations and less effective in evangelism. In spite of all the inspiring testimonies and positive rhetoric presented by New NAMB leadership, the cold hard facts reveal that Southern Baptists are doing a historically poor job of evangelizing North America. We are not in need of a spin zone, but a reality check. It is not working. In all honesty, our leaders should stop reporting that it is.

If you can’t see this video in your RSS reader or email, then click here.

Series of Articles – “Is the New NAMB Really Working”

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links

Is the NEW NAMB Really Working? Introduction

drMac — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:57:34 +0000

Separating New NAMB Public Relations Spin from the Underlying Facts

At the 2016 SBC Annual Convention in St. Louis, President Kevin Ezell declared by word and video, “It Is Working”. The “It” he was referencing the NEW NAMB directing of “increasing amount of its resources to church planting”. But, is it really? Is the post-Great Commission Resurgence NEW NAMB producing the results as advertised in press releases?

Before this conclusion can be reached, Southern Baptists must determine the questions to ask and the results to examine. A thorough exploration of the results based upon carefully chosen research questions must be completed at this critical time in the life of our country, the SBC, and the New NAMB.

Determining IF the SBC’s National Missions Agency is Really Working

Southern Baptists can and should determine if our national mission agency is working well and stewarding the trust of Southern Baptists wisely. This is particularly important in light of the termination of some *37% of NAMB staff missionaries, the radical changes to NAMB priorities, the elimination of the vast majority of NAMB evangelism efforts, the reworking of cooperation agreements with state conventions on two separate occasions, the defunding of partnerships with associations through our state conventions, and the defunding of missionaries. These drastic change measures were made after Southern Baptists adopted the Great Commission Resurgence Report in June 2010 and elected Dr. Kevin Ezell to serve as NAMB President in September 2010.

Enormous Inherited Trust to be Stewarded

Southern Baptist churches are the owners of NAMB and have cared for it through decades of sacrificial investments, engagements and prayers. Annually Southern Baptists support with their money and their energy the work assigned to the North American Mission Board. Southern Baptists contribute some $120 million annually through a combination of the Cooperative Program, Annie Armstrong and donations directly given to NAMB to fund the work assigned to them by Southern Baptists. May I remind you that the net assets of the NEW NAMB are $320 million?

Southern Baptists were “sold a bill of goods” that if NAMB focused almost exclusively on church planting, the benefits would be seen in several areas of ministry, particularly in baptisms. This factor, along with increasing the number of church plants were stated as primary reasons to make such radical changes to NAMB.

Weaker and Nonessential Questions

Are there good stories of the positive activities in church plants or in certain churches around North America?
Are there lost people being reached through churches and plants in North America?
Are some people excited or enthused about NAMB and mission efforts?
Are people engaging with mission efforts in various venues around North America?
How are the financial reserves?

While each of these questions may be interesting and provide a measure of insight, it is apparent that the current challenges and opportunities in front of Southern Baptist demand better and more revealing questions. The Christian church in North America, and particularly in the SBC, has historically been a strong base of support for mission and ministry across the US and around the world. The church today is under persistent and increasingly damaging attacks, both culturally and spiritually.

Southern Baptists are known to have been a leader in evangelism, church planting, and other mission efforts, in addition to our Sunday School emphasis. Southern Baptists have functioned well and expanded greatly under the essential values of cooperation and partnership that were built on trust and goodwill. Instead of requiring churches to participate in the cooperative missions effort of the Cooperative Program, we have relied on a strong trust.

Better and Essential Questions

In an effort to evaluate the radical change strategy implemented by NAMB, let us compare the results of our mission to reach North America during the past six years with the results of our mission to reach North America during the previous six years.

How are Southern Baptists doing in evangelism as seen in baptism reports in correlating comparisons?
What are the numbers and types of church plants and what are the evangelistic results of those plants?
Have essential partnerships and the spirit of cooperation been enhanced or damaged? In other words, are all parts (national, state and local) of the SBC, the mission and financial regenerating ecosystem of Southern Baptists, stronger or weaker? Are we better positioned to see increasing support or to see decreasing support in the future?
What is the practical impact of the second new Partnership Agreement in a State Convention and what are the ways this is likely to impact local and state ministry?
Have the financial and human resources entrusted to NAMB been wisely and appropriately stewarded?
Have NAMB staff leaders been provided with oversight by trustees in keeping with their responsibilities as entrusted to them by SBC churches and members?
Have NAMB leaders reflected Christ in their attitudes and actions with others as they steward the trust placed in them by SBC churches and members?

Answering these questions, among others, will provide Southern Baptists with the facts and insights they need to determine how their national missions agency is actually doing in this critical period of time for Southern Baptists. In a six-part series of articles, I plan to explore and address each of these questions.

No Spin Factual Reviews

I will provide readers with “no spin” answers. I cannot be dispassionate since I am a debtor who is deeply invested in the SBC tribe over the past thirty years of ministry. However, my accounts will be factual and will reflect my training and experience—even when the findings are not in keeping with the popularly told story. I have experience both as a pastor and a planter, along with eleven years as a tenured SBC professor of evangelism and church planting. I have experience consulting with SBC churches, along with conducting research and writing reports. I served the Florida Baptist Convention for six years in evangelism and church planting before serving as the Executive Director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware for two years.

Stay tuned for a factual review of the NEW NAMB strategy and the It Is Working claim.

Series of Articles – “Is the New NAMB Really Working”

PART 3: Church Planting – Full Article w/ Fact Links

PART 5: Financial Stewardship – Full Article w/ Fact Links