Share on facebook
Share on twitter

NAMB Claims it Can Interfere in State Conventions & More

Is NAMB allowed to interfere in state conventions and force out state leaders? That is what NAMB’s defense attorneys are saying in its legal case with Dr. Will McRaney.


On November 2nd NAMB filed a 3rd motion for dismissal, arguing a legal defense that makes claims that are in direct opposition to over a century of SBC cooperative mission partnerships and polity.


If we wish to preserve and grow the partnership between State Conventions and the SBC, we must call for NAMB to abandon its pursuit of their latest legal argument that would threaten our historic partnership.
Why does this pose a threat to the Partnership?


Why does this pose a threat to the partnership?


After two previously failed attempts to get the case dismissed, NAMB’s latest argument claims that they are legally a “Supporting Organization” to the BCMD, and consequently all State Conventions, which would give them the “legal right to interfere” in State Conventions to “protect its own economic or other interests as stated in Defense #5.


In simple terms, State Conventions would lose their autonomy because NAMB could interfere in a State Conventions and force out leadership at any point to protect its own interests, including economic interests.


However, that is not the only threat. Based on the same legal claim, this could open the door to dismantling the current legal ascending and descending liability protections for all State Conventions and SBC entities, give NAMB absolute privilege and qualified privilege over all State Convention employees, and apply all separations clauses State Convention employees have signed with their state to NAMB. These can be found in defense numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16 of their document.
What would this look like for State Conventions, their leaders, and their members?


What would this look like for State Conventions, their leaders, and their members?


If any State Convention reduced CP giving, NAMB could interfere and legally justify it by claiming it was protecting an economic interest. (Tenth Defense, Page 3)

If any state convention leader did not want to sign a new strategic partnership agreement, NAMB could use methods to force them out and justify it by claiming it was to protect their interest. (Tenth Defense, Page 3 and Sixteenth Defense, Page 4)

If NAMB committed any slander, assault, battery or any unjust, wrongful, discriminatory, or adverse act against an employee or leader of a State Convention, the State Convention employee would have no legal recourse against NAMB. (Fifth Defense, Page 2)
NAMB could publish defamatory statements against State Convention leaders claiming absolute privilege. (Twelfth Defense and Thirteenth Defense, Page 4)


Why has NAMB not legally been considered a “Supporting Organization” for the past century?


NAMB may provide support to State Conventions, but for over the past century NAMB and State Conventions have been considered separate, autonomous organizations that voluntarily partner to see the mission of Christ be more effectively advanced. One of the key reasons that NAMB has never been a “Supporting Organization” in the past was that it would immediately dismantle the autonomy of the State Conventions because it would allow for NAMB to interfere. Second, and perhaps legally the most important, typically for NAMB to legally be considered a “Supporting Organization” it would require that the BCMD (established in 1836) was created to support a purpose of NAMB (established 1997).


However, even if we did not consider the second point, SBC leaders should reject this claim as it would compromise the autonomy of the conventions.


What Can You Do?
The fastest way you can make a difference is by contacting the Executive Committee by phone at 615.244.2355 or emailing NAMB’s trustees at

If NAMB’s legal claim is granted, that would mark the end of the cooperation of our conventions and enter into an era of domination by NAMB over the State Conventions.


This cannot and should not be allowed.


Leadership in the SBC must call for NAMB’s attorneys to abandon this dangerous legal claim.


NAMB states that 100% of the funds it receives from donations through Annie Armstrong goes to the field. We know that to not be the case, so we decided to edit their chart to more accurately reflect the reality of how Annie Armstrong funds have been used under the direction of NAMB’s President, Dr. Kevin Ezell.

*At the publishing of this article in 2018, NAMB had told SBC Members that NAMB houses were only for Send Cities.  They have now officially expanded it.  However the homes referenced in the chart above were purchased prior to that announcement by NAMB. 

Leave a Reply

Use your Voice and Call for Reform

Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...
%d bloggers like this: