NAMB: Stop Bullying State Conventions!

Dr. Rick Patrick
Executive Director
Connect 316 – SBC Today

Evidence suggests that the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention may have interfered with the autonomous decision-making of our state conventions by exercising their authority to release or withhold mission dollars donated by all Southern Baptists. NAMB may have leveraged these financial gifts in order to dictate matters of policy and personnel that are properly at the discretion of our state conventions.

Several credible, high-level, first-hand witnesses report that NAMB may have interfered with autonomous state convention decisions in Maryland-Delaware, the Northwest Baptist Convention, Michigan, West Virginia, and Alaska, among other states. There is even evidence, outside the scope of this article, suggesting that Dr. Ezell may have used NAMB time and office equipment to place phone calls solely for the purpose of keeping former state convention employees from doing ministry with other Southern Baptist entities, in an apparent attempt to prevent those individuals from earning a living.

PRIOR CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION

In May of 2016, a petition on SBCTODAY.COM garnered eighty-seven signatures of Southern Baptists requesting an independent investigation into the activities of Dr. Kevin Ezell, President of the North American Mission Board. Testimony from state convention executive directors and others alleged that Dr. Ezell was dictating terms to our state conventions in a heavy-handed manner. Instead of launching an independent investigation, NAMB Trustees claimed they conducted their own.

But, instead of conducting a true investigation, NAMB Trustees conducted private conversations among themselves, apparently to form a strategy to dismiss Southern Baptists’ concerns. They did not even question the principal injured party who was bringing the complaint. What manner of investigation fails to question a chief witness? What NAMB did was rally the wagons to defend the administration, without regard to the best interests of the churches that trustees are supposed to protect. Because even more information has now come to light, SBC TODAY is again calling for an independent investigation.

SBC ENTITIES AND STATE CONVENTIONS 

Before describing the specific allegations, we must first explain the relationship between our state conventions and our national Southern Baptist entities. Importantly, Southern Baptists are not organized like Catholics, where the Pope directs the Cardinal who directs the Bishop who directs the Priest who directs the church. Instead, each Southern Baptist congregation, local association, state convention and national entity is autonomous and operates independently of all others.

This principle is even codified in our SBC Constitution: While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, associations, or convention. (Article IV. Authority)

Local associations and state conventions are not subordinate to national organizations, but are equals. Organizationally, the local church is at the top of any pyramid in Southern Baptist life, and all other groups and fellowships and ministries are subordinate to the congregations that compose each body. 

STATE CONVENTION TAMPERING PROCEDURE

Evidence suggests NAMB has tampered with the autonomous decision-making of our state conventions and their elected leaders by coercing states into new Strategic Partnership Agreements on two occasions—once in 2012 and once in 2014-15. These Strategic Partnership Agreements were drafted by NAMB lawyers who were funded by Southern Baptist donations.

The terms of these new Strategic Partnership Agreements clearly favored NAMB over the state conventions, and, as a condition of both the partnership and the funding, state convention leaders were forced to sign Confidentiality Agreements. These so-called gag orders prevented state convention leaders from publicly addressing their concerns. Such documents are not conducive to the kind of openly transparent business that should characterize any organization being managed on Christian principles.

FIVE CASES OF ALLEGED TAMPERING

While time and space constraints prevent a detailed discussion of these allegations, it is nevertheless necessary to summarize a handful of case studies supporting this claim.

1. Maryland-Delaware Baptist Convention

On December 2, 2014, the Maryland-Delaware Baptist Convention, also known as the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network, a group of 560 churches, received a letter from NAMB President Kevin Ezell stating that in one year, approximately one million dollars of annual funding (for joint staff, missions and evangelism) would be terminated by NAMB. Ezell specifically cited Executive Director Will McRaney as the reason this funding would be withdrawn.

McRaney and the Convention Board chose to continue honoring the 2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement instead of signing the new NAMB-created agreement, which would have given NAMB 100% control over church planting in Maryland-Delaware. It would have given NAMB control over the hiring of staff. It would have eliminated NAMB funding for Evangelism Staff and removed NAMB support for the State Director of Evangelism.

It should be noted that Dr. McRaney, who was merely advocating for their God-entrusted mission responsibility and defending state convention autonomy, received an excellent performance evaluation and a unanimous vote of support by the state mission board in February of 2015. He was even given a raise. Yet only four months later, McRaney was terminated without cause.

Following his termination, not only was NAMB financial support for the Maryland-Delaware Convention fully restored, but it was even increased, prompting one formerly elected state convention leader to write that McRaney had been “sold out” for NAMB money. Interestingly, when the state convention selected their new executive director, the candidate chosen was a former Louisville Pastor and Southern Seminary faculty member with strong Kentucky ties—a person, in other words, who would fall in line with Ezell and NAMB.

2. Northwest Baptist Convention

The Northwest Baptist Convention is a group of 440 churches located in Oregon and Washington. Under their 2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement with non-southern state conventions, NAMB provided funds and health insurance for jointly funded missionary staff. However, the terms of the new 2014-15 Strategic Partnership Agreements offered 100% funding for positions and insurance, but also required 100% direct supervision by NAMB.

When the Northwest Convention’s Executive Director, Dr. Randy Adams, declined this proposal in order to preserve their autonomy and continue directing their own church planting, he was told their workers would lose the health insurance formerly provided by NAMB. Thus, the penalty for rejecting NAMB’s new deal was the elimination of the current deal. NAMB was basically saying, “We will cooperate according to our terms or we will not cooperate at all.” Adams even told the Christian Examiner: “We used to collaborate with them…but now we are told the decisions that are made for us.” 

3. Baptist State Convention of Michigan

In July of 2014, Dr. Bobby Gilstrap was forced to resign as Executive Director of the Baptist State Convention of Michigan, a group of 250 churches. According to high level sources, this decision was also impacted by accusations from Dr. Kevin Ezell and other NAMB officers, who stated that Gilstrap was “impossible to work with.” This is the very same tactic Ezell is alleged to have used to impact the termination of Will McRaney in the Maryland-Delaware case. Could it be that Ezell considers “impossible to work with” any State Baptist Convention Executive who refuses to allow NAMB to dictate their policy and personnel decisions?

The new Executive Director in Michigan had been hired by Ezell at NAMB just six months earlier. Upon his appointment as the state convention executive, he stated in a group that he had never even been to Michigan. One might reasonably ask, “How does a Southern Baptist become a state convention executive director without ever setting foot on the soil of the state whose convention he is being hired to lead?” It certainly helps if one has ties to Kevin Ezell. According to Baptist Press, NAMB Vice President Steve Davis was instrumental in the Michigan search process. The person ultimately selected was a former Chairman of the NAMB Trustee Board and a member of the Presidential Search Team that called Ezell to NAMB.

4. West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists

In September of 2015, the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists, a group of 210 churches, was searching for an Executive Director. Sources indicate that Dr. Ezell offered to use NAMB funds to pay the state Executive Director’s salary for two full years, provided that state leadership would agree to install the person Ezell would hand-select.

Initially, Ezell had gone so far as to ask them to agree to approve his candidate without even being informed of the person’s name in advance, but this was a term they could not accept. Thus, they were given the name, and then they accepted his quid pro quo offer. The person Dr. Ezell selected was, of course, personally loyal to him, having been nominated by Ezell for First Vice President of the SBC back in 2008.

When Southern Baptists donate funds through the Cooperative Program and Annie Armstrong, they certainly do not envision these funds being doled out by a national leader to pay the salary of a state convention executive in exchange for the privilege of becoming a one-man Personnel Committee for that state convention. This is simply not the way Southern Baptists are supposed to operate. If these allegations are true, what we have is a national Southern Baptist entity President tampering with the autonomous affairs of several state conventions.

5. Alaska Baptist Convention

In May of 2016, Michael Procter retired as the Executive Director of the Alaska Baptist Convention, a group of about a hundred churches and missions. Prior to this time, sources indicate that Ezell believed new leadership was needed in Alaska. Thus, Ezell invested hundreds of thousands of NAMB dollars to build up a church planter he used to work around state convention leaders to plant churches his way. At a later time, this church planter expressed his personal regret regarding the things he did for NAMB and the way others were hurt in the process. He declared that the story of Will McRaney’s removal from office in the Maryland-Delaware Convention was much more common than people realize.

TROUBLING PATTERNS OF INTERFERENCE

These five case studies give evidence of a troubling pattern by Dr. Ezell. He continues to insert himself into the autonomous decisions of state conventions, abusing his influence as the head of NAMB to get rid of independent thinkers and replace them with loyalists who are subservient to his every wish. The evidence shows that if a state convention leader does not do things exactly as Kevin Ezell desires, he labels them as “impossible to work with” and “incompetent” and campaigns in that state to drive him out, solidifying Ezell’s control. Moreover, in at least two cases, he has been so vindictive as to attempt to prevent such deposed leaders from even earning a living in other ministry roles.

THE USE OF MANIPULATIVE ULTIMATUMS

Some may wonder, “What is so wrong with NAMB dictating state convention personnel decisions or church planting policies? Did not the GCR give NAMB a mandate to oversee church planting?” The simple answer is “No.”

NAMB was visualized as “reinvented” to “encourage Southern Baptist churches to become church planting congregations.” Specifically, the GCR Final Report stated, “Regardless of the size or location of our churches, we call for each to have a vision for planting churches somewhere in North America. It is our desire that at least 50% of the ministry efforts of our North American Mission Board be given to assist churches in planting healthy, multiplying, and faithful Baptist congregations in the United States and Canada.”

This is a far cry from giving NAMB license to interfere with the hiring and firing of state convention staff, to bribe a state convention with the promise of paying their executive director’s salary for two years, or to threaten the loss of missions funding if a state convention executive refuses to sign a new agreement.

Additionally, although the GCR Task Force recommended the “phasing out of Cooperative Agreements“ over a seven-year period to “be replaced with a more appropriate structure and pattern of cooperation,” they also cautioned that “in order to accomplish its mission for Southern Baptists, NAMB must work in partnership with the state conventions, and we affirm the need for this partnership to be based in cooperation and basic agreement concerning strategies.”

It would be one thing if NAMB were merely withholding mission funds from certain states unconditionally. While such an action would be wrong, it would not be manipulative. However, what we have seen here is evidence that NAMB is withholding mission dollars through the use of manipulative ultimatums. If state conventions see things NAMB’s way, sign the Strategic Partnership Agreements, sign the Confidentiality Agreements, let NAMB pick their leaders, and let NAMB establish their church planting policies, then they get the money Southern Baptists have donated to reach North America. However, if state conventions do not play along, NAMB turns off the faucet and the financial pipeline from our churches is capped.

The little old ladies in our WMU circles named Gertrude and Ethyl and Bertie and Mary Lou did not give their Annie Armstrong offerings so the President of NAMB could get his way. They donated sacrificially so lost people could be saved—no matter whose church planting strategy the leaders in any state might choose to embrace. Annie is not a bargaining chip. Her last name was Armstrong and not Strongarm.

THE ROLES OF WRITERS AND JUDGES

At some point in these conversations, someone invariably asks, “Can you prove these allegations?” Frankly, the task of proving allegations belongs to the lawyers, judges and juries of our justice system. If this were a court of law, we would have access to subpoenas, affidavits and other legal documents that might very well prove this case beyond reasonable doubt. However, such a task does not belong to the editorial writer or investigative journalist whose concern is merely with raising the questions and exposing the possible wrongdoing. 

Do the sources for this article include a number of credible, high-level, first-hand witnesses to these events? Yes. Does this article alone prove that NAMB has been meddling with our autonomous state conventions? No legal determination has been made at the present time. But one observation we can make conclusively is that something may in fact be going on here. Whether or not we have enough evidence to conclude an investigation, we certainly have enough evidence to launch one. 

APPEAL FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

While these matters are unpleasant for Southern Baptists to discuss, they must not be ignored any longer, for significant evidence exists of potential injustices that may require corrective action. Furthermore, any future investigation simply cannot be conducted by NAMB Trustees themselves, for their role in looking the other way when these issues were previously raised is itself an action for which they must be held accountable. In the absence of any Court of Appeals in SBC life higher than the Trustee Boards, one is forced to appeal directly to Southern Baptists.

If you are a Southern Baptist willing to join those of us who have called for an Independent Investigation, please add your signature to this petition. May God bless the ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention as we reach the lost by working together, respectfully, at every level of our mutual cooperation.