Why SBC churches eschew evangelists: NAMB?

Most SBC pastors and churches do not use vocational evanglelists. Less SBC churches use vocational evangelists than did ten years ago, twenty years ago. It is one of the longrunnng trends in SBC life.

How come? One might ask.

Let's ask Jerry Drace, one of the SBC's most distinguished vocational evangelists. Last month he offered an interesting column in The Christian Index entitled, "The SBC evangelist - an endangered species" in which he listed five reasons that he thinks SBC vocational evangelists are an endangered species. [I'd link it but cannot.]

"First," he wrote, "there is an existing attitude toward evangelists in certain areas of SBC leadership."

Huh?

I'm a pastor. I've had revivals most every year. I've used evangelists rarely but occasionally. I don't recall ever considering what any SBC leader thought about my choice or non-choice of a revival preacher.

Turns out that Drace had in mind for the "certain areas of SBC leadership" one Kevin Ezell and the North American Mission Board whose attitude towards evangelists consisted of their decision to cut funding for certain activities of the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists (COSBE).

What did they cut?

They stopped taking Cooperative Program and Annie Armstrong money, over $100,000, and using it to pay for travel, hotel, meal, and conference expenses for evangelists to attend the COSBE retreat held immediately prior to the SBC's annual meeting every June.

NAMB quits cutting hotel, food, and travel costs and that is why SBC evangelists are an endangered species?

I rather think not.

I doubt most Southern Baptists knew that part of their CP and AA gifts went to pay for hotels and meals for Drace and his fellow evangelists.

Ezell responded to Drace's article by stating that "our decision to no longer cover travel, hotel and reception costs for evangelists to meet and greet at the annual Southern Baptist meeting is not intended as a negative toward them – it is a way of keeping as many dollars focused on missionaries and new churches as we can."

Sounds like a better use of the money to me.

But, back to the SBC evangelist being an endangered species. If you ignore Drace's first one he is quite reasonable in his other four reasons:

Second, the current fashion in many churches forsakes sound biblical exposition with an evangelistic fervor.

Third, the lifestyle and requirements of those in full-time evangelism is vastly different from any other Christian calling. Since our calling is referred to as a “Faith Ministry” pastors often make off-handed and ill-advised statements regarding the financial necessities of the evangelist and his family.

Fourth, we as evangelists are often guilty of the demise of evangelistic events in the local church and area wide emphases in the community. Those with unscrupulous methods and deceitful messages hinder not only the advancement of the Kingdom, but encumber evangelists who have ministries of integrity.

Fifth, the challenge for our young men and women to answer the call to itinerant evangelism is almost non-existent in our churches and Southern Baptist institutions of higher learning.

I'll generally agree with Drace on four of five, too bad he expends 40% of his words on the one he lists first.

SBC pastors and evangelists don't eschew evangelists because of Kevin Ezell, NAMB, or any other SBC person or entity. We may be afraid to ask one. We may feel that we cannot afford one. We may have been stung in the past by disreputable ones. But we don't take our cues from SBC leadership.

Vocational evangelists in the SBC have been declining for decades, but not because of NAMB.
____________________________________

The full text of Drace's first reason is below:

"First," he wrote, "there is an existing attitude toward evangelists in certain areas of SBC leadership."


The latest Convention meeting in Phoenix saw the smallest number of evangelists gather in the history of the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists (COSBE). This was due in a large measure to the action taken by the current leadership of NAMB.

The traditional financial assistance for the COSBE retreat held the weekend before each Convention was withdrawn. Pastors, staff, and agency personnel have their Convention expenses covered in their budgets, but the evangelist must cover all expenses out of his or her own personal finances.

This action taken at NAMB was a spiritual “slap in the face” to those of us in full-time evangelism. It is a clear declaration of the current trend in the SBC toward the men and women who have given their lives to answering God’s call to full-time evangelism.

Since 1975 I have sat in scores of meetings with denominational leaders listening to how much the evangelist is needed and appreciated. I have heard countless times, “If we can ever help, we are here for you.” When you are young and naïve you believe it, but when you are seasoned you know better.

Lip service without feet service is like church planting without evangelism.