The following link is a copy of a report sent to California Baptists outlining their response to mandates handed down to states by the New NAMB. The California response clearly has a singular stated purpose, “to clearly communicate what we (CSBC) now understand as actions taken by NAMB and their impact on CSBC and its ministries. This document is not intended to be adversarial, but seeks to inform California Southern Baptists about the current state of the relationship which exists between the two entities.” It was written in January of this year.
This report will discuss the implications and impact of NAMB’s decisions to change Cooperative Agreements that NAMB has had in place for decades and it appears that they made these changes with very little input from the states. The states were apparently notified of the changes but had very little input as to what those changes would be. These changes are effecting jointly funded missionary positions that states and the old NAMB used to fund together. The New NAMB has cut funding for a number of these positions, as this report from California will point out, while NAMB insists that their withdrawing of funding has nothing to do with the state’s decision to continue the work. Obviously one anyone can understand the implications of that response.
What is interesting is this. The states are being hit with several factors here. States are being asked to increase their giving to the CP from 35-40% to 50% over the next few years. If one then factors in the loss of funds that the sates are currently from NAMB on jointly funded employee positions, that means the state is getting cut twice, not to mention the reduction in giving to the CP in the first place. The question that must be asked is this: who is in a better position to help meet the needs in the US, the states or the national entity in NAMB. Seems like we are in the same position denominationally that we are in nationally with the ongoing arguments of who can better distribute the money for the most benefit of the people, the local, state or national entities. Very interesting, indeed.
In addition to reducing the monies to the state conventions, NAMB has also decided to discontinue insurance provisions to any missionary positions that they do not provide a majority of salary funding to. This is no doubt a move to curb the state’s ability to get the biggest “bang for their buck so to speak” by utilizing as much money to “jointly fund” as many individuals as possible to make use of the benefits fund that NAMB might provide. By making the benefits available to those whose salary is 50% or greater, it limits the number of jointly held employees if benefits is a major consideration. This was certainly a prudent move on NAMB’s part. There are other issues but these stood out as I read the California report. Obviously these issues are issues facing every state convention and this is no doubt the reason the state directors recently formed a committee among themselves to flesh out these and other issues that the states are facing with respect to the changes NAMB has put into place.
Here is thE link to the entire article that is indeed a must read for ALL SOUTHERN BAPTISTS who are concerned about the future of the SBC and its entities.
To read the article from the California Baptist Convention, PLEASE CLICK HERE.