NAMB Response to Christian Index article 'North America: Hanging in the Balance'

Objective Journalism “in the balance”

Timing and fairness.

1. We have been aware for several weeks that the Christian Index’ managing editor was researching a story critical of NAMB. We made every attempt to answer his questions during a lengthy interview with Chuck Allen and Randy Singer on Thursday Feb. 9 which lasted more than two hours. We also provided additional information the following day, and even responded to subsequent questions in writing two days later.

2. NAMB was surprised and very disappointed that virtually none of the answers given during the lengthy interview were quoted in the story. In fact, there are no quotes in the story at all. None of NAMB’s supposed critics are cited, but over and over were called “observers” or “onlookers.” Of course, numerous times the writer simply made assertions that were apparently his own without even attempting to represent them as anything other than that.

3. That’s why we are also extremely disappointed that even though the writer had been working on the story for several months, he rushed the story to press within three days of the interview so that it would be distributed three weeks before the annual North American Missions Emphasis. We pray that it will not have a detrimental affect on Southern Baptists’ prayer and financial support of the missionaries we jointly support with our state convention partners.

Inaccuracies and innuendoes

1. The story contains numerous inaccuracies and innuendoes, many of which were explicitly dispelled by NAMB executive leaders. For example, the “analysis” asserts that NAMB church planting efforts have been “less than stellar” and predicts dire consequences if church planting numbers “continue their slide.” But the actual numbers provided to the author the very weekend he wrote the article reflect an increase in church plants from pre-NAMB days, not a “slide.” In the eight years since NAMB’s existence, NAMB has averaged 277 more church plants per year than in the eight years prior to NAMB’s existence. (Pre-NAMB average was 1290. Since NAMB’s inception, the average has been 1567). Five of the last eight years of church planting represent our highest years in the history of the Convention. In addition, as NAMB representatives explained during their interview, NAMB studies document increased health for these church plants (measured at five and ten year marks), an increased emphasis on church plants at our Southern Baptist seminaries due in part to the NAMB-initiated Nehemiah Project and an increase in the number of sponsoring churches. The writer, of course, chose not to mention any of these positive factors in his analysis.

2. The writer also implies that NAMB is misleading Southern Baptists concerning the number of missionaries they and their partners support because we include Mission Service Corps missionaries as part of its missionary force. He claims that NAMB “regularly states that more than 5,300 missionaries are supported through the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering.” These claims are simply not true.

Consider, for example, the information clearly stated on NAMB’s Web page www.NAMB.net under the tab “Sending Missionaries.” After setting forth the definition of a missionary jointly agreed upon between NAMB and the International Mission Board, that page describes the three different categories of NAMB missionaries as follows:

Career Missionaries usually receive salary compensation and benefits from NAMB and convention partners. They often serve in roles such as church starting, community ministry, evangelism or mission strategy. (Learn more about Career)

Limited Term Missionaries usually assume a vocational missionary role for a specified period of time in the same type of ministry as a Career Missionary. They receive salary and benefit support from NAMB and convention partners. (Learn more about US/C2, Nehemiah Church Planters and Church Planter Pastors)

Mission Service Corps MSC Missionaries serve in many of the same mission roles as Career and Limited Term Missionaries. They do not receive salary and benefits from NAMB but do receive support through training, placement services and administrative support. (Learn more about Mission Service Corps)

Missionaries commissioned through the above pathways of service are included in NAMB’s official missionary count, which totaled 5,364 at the end of 2005. When NAMB began in 1997 the count stood at 4866.

NAMB’s annual report to the Convention uses these same categories and further breaks down each category into the types of missionaries represented. There is absolutely no deception in the way these missionaries are categorized or reported.

MSC Missionaries commit to working at least 20 hours a week for more than a year in their assigned ministry, (although the average tenure is 5.5 years). MSC Missionaries serve in many of the same mission roles that Career and Limited Term Missionaries do, but often in areas where salaries and benefits are not available.

All of these categories of service were shared in writing with the author of the story, yet he chose to characterize the growth of MSC missionaries as something unseemly or, at the least, unworthy. We are proud of the fact that we recognize these dedicated servants’ commitment and calling by referring to them as “missionaries.” NAMB’s and IMB’s definition of a missionary is a person who, in response to God’s call and gifting, leaves his or her comfort zone and crosses cultural, geographic or other barriers to proclaim the gospel and lives out a Christian witness in obedience to the Great Commission.

We thank God that Mission Service Corps missionaries stand in the gap when funding is not available.

The writer also failed to report NAMB’s response to his question of why the full-time funded missionary count is down 10%. This is due to three dynamics:

(a) an early retirement option that some missionaries chose in 2004 and 2005 as part of a change in post-retirement benefits
(b) the fact that many of these missionaries are jointly funded with state partners who cannot currently afford their percentage of the cooperative budget funds, resulting in a vacancy; and,
(c) a 91% increase in health care costs since NAMB’s inception, which NAMB has not passed through to its missionaries.

Again, this information was supplied to the writer but was not included in the story.

3. The story states that NAMB made a “one-time” increase in funds to the mission field and the “results were almost immediate…But when the funds were depleted, the momentum ceased and growth [in church planting and evangelism] came to a standstill.” But in truth, NAMB has put millions of additional dollars to the field, not on a one-time basis but on a continuing basis. Cooperative funds with the states, for example, which help fund missionaries, church planting and evangelism efforts in those states, were increased by more than $2 million each year in 1999, 2000 and 2001 and by more than $1 million in 2002. And these were not “one-time” increases, but each of these years established a new higher base in field funding which was in turn increased the following year. In total, since 1997, NAMB has increased state cooperative budgets by more than $12 million.

4. The writer complains that NAMB pulled the funding for the What Now? evangelism campaign and did not “uniformly communicate [this decision] to state conventions.” NAMB representatives apologized for any confusing communications and Chuck Allen explained that NAMB discontinued the campaign, at the behest of state conventions, in order to avoid confusion for the local church caused by a number of SBC national initiatives. But the writer calls this explanation “a little weak” because, he asserts, NAMB simply replaced the What Now? evangelism campaign with a new program entitled Who Cares?

But, as Chuck Allen explained during the interview, Who Cares is decidedly not another national evangelism strategy to take the place of What Now? It is, instead, a response to the requests of NAMB’s state partners and churches that NAMB provides evangelistic television and print ads (along with the telephone volunteers to share Christ and direct people to SBC churches). This is a tool that can support the current SBC convention-wide emphasis on reaching a million baptisms and not, as the writer asserts, just another theme “in the crowded marketplace of themes.”

The writer also criticizes NAMB for not launching Who Cares media ads this past fall. He shrugs off the explanation that NAMB was busy coordinating responses to Hurricane Katrina by saying NAMB was using a vendor to put together the ads. But, as we explained to the writer, NAMB staff would be involved in every step of Who Cares implementation and the unprecedented response to the Hurricane Katrina victims required an “all hands on deck” focus by NAMB staff this fall with many putting in 15-20 hour days.

5. Concerning the issue of outsourcing communication production services, the article prematurely draws conclusions without waiting to see if this transition helps the agency be more effective and efficient. Instead, it condemns the decision along with the vendors who are helping NAMB make the move, especially InovaOne. We deeply regret the necessity of eliminating any positions that affect NAMB staff members, but the reader is left with the impression that something underhanded was involved when we’re simply trying to be more efficient and effective in the ministries assigned to us by the SBC.

The article also alleges that NAMB has a “corporate mindset” and has maintained “that it is not a church but a business.” NAMB does state that we are not a replacement for the local church but rather an agency whose task is to assist the local church. We believe our constituents want us to operate with the mindset of efficiency and effectiveness that characterizes the best-run companies but with a heart for ministry. That is why our agency culture is characterized by things like spiritual focus days, prayer for each other and our missionaries, and an emphasis on the local church and active participation in it. We believe we should focus as an agency on our core assignments of evangelism, church planting and sending missionaries – and that’s one reason we have outsourced technical functions such as printing and video production (though the content is still dictated by NAMB employees).

InovaOne, as we explained to the writer, is one of many vendors helping us through a transition period as we prepare comprehensive Requests for Proposal for all of the outsourced work. InovaOne is paid in the same way and on the same basis as any other vendor.

6. As Dr. Reccord explained to NAMB’s trustee officers when Total Life Impact (TLI) was first established, the purpose of the small company is to provide an avenue of ministry for Dr. Reccord’s wife. Contrary to the article’s assertions, Cheryl Reccord is the only “speaker” featured on the TLI Web site. It is illustrative of the writer’s agenda that a company designed to help families instill a mission mindset in their children is castigated as creating a conflict of interest.

The writer saved his most unprofessional tactics for an attack on Dr. Reccord’s motivations, ethics and honesty in asserting that not all his speaking opportunities promoted North American missions. And, these charges weren’t attributed to unnamed sources, like much of the rest of the article. The author himself makes the charge that two or three media appearances out of Dr. Reccord’s literally thousands of speaking engagements and media interviews were not focused specifically on NAMB and NAMB alone. Yet the interviews were focused on helping laity be on mission Christians.

From NAMB’s beginning, Dr. Reccord and our Board of Trustees have asserted that if Southern Baptists are to reach North America for Christ, we cannot rely solely on pastors, missionaries and other paid staff—we must mobilize Southern Baptist laity. With that message, Dr. Reccord has challenged every Southern Baptist to be on mission in sharing Christ. That message includes a challenge to parents to build an on mission lifestyle into their children and a challenge to every Christian to maintain purity in order to avoid immobilizing their impact for Christ. Dr. Reccord has led NAMB to partner first and foremost with Southern Baptists, but we can’t claim to be about the Kingdom and condemn those who attempt to work with other Great Commission Christians.

The writer further questions Dr. Reccord’s integrity by implying that he misled NAMB trustees about the denominational affiliation of Promise Keepers men. But if the writer had told NAMB he had a question about this information and given us a chance to respond (which he did not), he would have been told that Dr. Reccord was given that information directly by the President of Promise Keepers, Tom Fortson, in a meeting where Chuck Allen was also present. The writer could have asked about the perceived inconsistency but he did not. Further, the writer misses the entire point of the speaking engagement. Southern Baptists are Kingdom focused. This is a chance for an agency President to give the main evangelism message at all 19 Promise Keeper events and to meet with Southern Baptist leaders in that area the following morning. It is incredible that the writer finds fault even with this.

Lack of balance

1. Although the article asserted that its intention was to examine the three areas uniquely assigned to NAMB (evangelism, church planting and missionary appointment), a great deal of the article dwelled on a few high profile programs that, frankly, didn’t do as well as we had planned. But, there was absolutely no focus on what has gone well at NAMB other than a throw-away line that “there are bright spots” like WorldChangers, chaplaincy and disaster relief. Why no questions on those and other successful programs, initiatives and missionaries? The article clearly was not intended to be an objective review of NAMB and its accomplishments and disappointments, but a highlighting of a few programs where we failed. We admit we’re not perfect. We freely admitted our mistakes during the two-hour interview – mistakes that we have learned from. But there are incredible stories and statistics showing God’s great work in North American missions though the writer deemed none of them worthy of focus in a 4,500-word article.

2. Did the writer know about these examples of God at work? He must since he has written about many of them in his capacity the last several years as, ironically, an outsourced writer for NAMB’s evangelism and church planting publications. In that capacity, he praised church planting efforts and wrote compelling stories about NAMB missionaries at work, rather than deriding our agency’s attempt to assist churches in reaching North America.

3. The article does end on a note where we can find agreement. The bottom line, the writer states, “is that if we lose the homeland, we lose the world.” Our desire is to focus on reaching the homeland for Christ and avoid the harm to the Kingdom that comes when Christian brothers attack their own.