« Welcome to the All New North American Mission Board: the Candidacy of Kevin Ezell as President (part II) by Peter Lumpkins | Main | UPDATE: NAMB Trustees and Presidential Candidate Kevin Ezell by Peter Lumpkins »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Thank you, by means of your excellent analysis of Ezell's nomination, for exposing the hypocrisy of the GCR agenda with regard to the Cooperative Program. All the "talk" insisted that CP was really important to these SBC leaders, but all the "walk" reveals an underlying missions philosophy that is societal rather than cooperative.

I pastor a church with a budget 1/8 the size of Highview. We gave more through Annie Armstrong than they did. We give 10% through CP while they give 2%. If our leaders are no longer committed to the cooperative method, how can we as followers possibly continue in it?

If Ezell is now the role model for missions leadership, then my church needs to change drastically the way we support missions. And if he is not the role model for missions leadership, then why should Southern Baptists elect him to lead our North American Mission Board?


Peter, your analysis makes it clear: whatever reason Ezell was elected, it was NOT his support of NAMB or the CP.

I think you will see that this type of politicizing of NAMB (like Page and the EC)will only serve to deepen the divide in the Convention.


Just a suggestion for your photoshopping:

Whenever you are placing text on a pic like this, make sure you do the shadow effect because it'll outline a portion of each letter, making it easier to read and more professional looking. Just a suggestion from a media guy.

The comments to this entry are closed.