EXTRA EDITION: Is NAMB Trading Baptist Convictions for Federal Grant Funding?
The SBC elite’s defense of taking refugee money from the Biden Administration pointedly avoids all the main issues.
NOTE: My friend Jon Whitehead at the wonderful Center for Baptist Leadership addresses the scandal of NAMB’s taking of money from the Biden Administration. And it is indeed a scandal: it violates the Baptist Faith and Message, it compromises the ministry of the church, and it absolutely calls into question who’s calling the shots: Baptist tithers or Democrat officials. — RDM
by Jon Whitehead, Esq.
February 23, 2025
On Friday, February 7, the Center for Baptist Leadership (CBL) reported that Send Relief, a ministry funded through the SBC’s Cooperative Program, had entered into a financial contract with the U.S. State Department (under the Biden Administration) and World Relief to help settle international refugees in Boston.
While that may sound like just another “ministry partnership,” the details expose a deeper issue—one that strikes at the heart of Baptist distinctives and the autonomy of the local church.
Here’s the bottom line: Once Send Relief accepted these federal funds, it was no longer operating under direct accountability to the SBC.
As a reminder, Send Relief is a joint initiative of the North American Mission Board (NAMB) and the International Mission Board (IMB), structured under the corporate shell of the old SBC “FamilyNet” satellite network. Furthermore, Send Relief’s trustees are not directly approved by the SBC messengers.
Now, it’s openly partnering with the federal government to advance a refugee resettlement agenda—one designed and dictated by the Biden State Department.
This revelation has sparked a good deal of debate on the project’s “merits,” etc. But those debates studiously avoid the fundamental questions.
Let me explain.
Does This Violate the Baptist Faith & Message?
The answer is undeniable and undebatable: Yes, it absolutely does.
The Baptist Faith & Message (BFM) explicitly states that “The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.”
Yet, here we are. A major SBC entity has decided that partnering with the federal government is a way to “extend and amplify” our cooperative efforts to expand Christ’s Kingdom.
And what has been NAMB’s response? They’ve chosen to ignore the real issues.
Instead of addressing this clear violation of Baptist convictions, NAMB responded indirectly. Two pieces came out last week defending Send Relief’s actions:
First, there was a Baptist Press article by Trevin Wax (himself a NAMB Executive) titled “Public resources extend, amplify Baptists’ compassion ministry.”
The second was a report/editorial in The Alabama Baptist that clearly backs NAMB’s decision to continue partnering with the government.
What’s missing from both of these pieces? Any mention of the Baptist Faith & Message. Any engagement with the actual theological concerns at stake. Worse yet, neither article links to CBL’s original report. It’s almost as if they hope Southern Baptists won’t notice.
Instead, these pieces rely on emotionally loaded language—painting a sentimental picture of Baptists “running toward places of deepest pain and suffering.”
Here’s the Problem: Not Every Outstretched Hand Brings the Gospel
Trevin Wax opens his article with this stirring line: “Whenever I’m preaching and I need to make a point about the beauty of the Church in action, I often refer to the image of God’s people with arms outstretched running toward places of deepest pain and suffering.”
It’s an evocative image, sure. But “open arms” don’t always contain the gospel. Yes, Romans 10:15 reminds us, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace.” But Paul wasn’t talking about or taking Roman funds for his gospel work.
More appropriate, I think, is Ronald Reagan’s timeless warning: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Government Partnerships: A Trojan Horse for Theological Drift
Wax tries to argue that Baptists have always been at the forefront of mercy ministries. That’s true. But what he fails to acknowledge is that the church’s mercy, compassion, and philanthropy should avoid using taxpayer funds.
Wax appeals to the First Amendment, suggesting that evangelicals have long fought for the right of faith-based charities to receive government grants. That’s misleading. Baptists have fought against government discrimination, yes. But we’ve never argued that the government should fund our ministries.
Here lies the key distinction:
Fighting for the right to operate free from government interference? Biblical.
Taking government money to expand church ministries? A dangerous compromise.
Who Is Doing the Work—The Church or the State?
Wax agrees that Send’s efforts are “the Church in action.” But he proposes a revolutionary change in Baptist doctrine, when he claims that government funding simply “extends and amplifies” the work of cooperating SBC churches.
That’s not how Baptists have historically understood it.
God undoubtedly sets up Kings and gives them the sword to restrain evil. Kings and governments have a duty to secure the good of their people and to encourage the conditions for those people to obtain both temporal and eternal goods. It’s a blessing to have a King that acknowledges Jesus is Lord.
However, the church has goals and power that do not derive from the government. Jesus warned his followers against mixing the power of these two institutions. “My Kingdom is not of this world,” He says (John 18:36). And “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).
Baptists have long believed and taught that the church and the state have different roles and God-given authorities:
The state bears the sword (Romans 13:4), tasked with maintaining civil order.
The church carries the cross (Matthew 16:24), called to make disciples of all nations.
When the church relies on government resources to fund its work, it trades the cross for the sword. Baptists have gone out of their way to reject any hint of that trade.
Because this is so important to Baptist theology, BF&M Article XIV lays out our theology of cooperation: “Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom” (emphasis added).
And we specifically reject taxpayer funding; efforts to extend Christ’s Kingdom “should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends” (BF&M Art. XVII).
Wax is asking Baptists to imagine the glory they could have if they only let the government pass the offering plate for them.
Baptists have always refused this deal.
Wax’s Straw Man: “Some Believe Any Government Connection Is a Compromise”
No one is arguing that churches should refuse to engage with the government altogether. We accept police protection. We report crimes. We comply with fire codes. That’s not the issue.
The issue is whether a national SBC entity should rely on government money to accomplish the Southern Baptist Convention’s missions and educational efforts.
And here’s the key distinction: When disaster strikes, churches may coordinate with government relief efforts.
But Baptists have never let the IRS pass the offering plate for us.
Even in “close cases,” Baptists have never abandoned this clear New Testament commitment. Obviously, churches have some connection to their government. But Baptists have always tried to police the line.
Wax and NAMB are now suggesting we give up the line altogether. The SBC should refuse their offer.
Not every government connection is a “compromise ” by nature. That’s not what CBL was arguing or highlighting in its report. Consider some other “government connections” that are not inherently a violation of the BF&M, nor do they come with “grant executing” strings attached.
Baptists have accepted compensation for government takings and losses. In 2020, the federal government demanded that churches and businesses close down in the name of safety. Rather than adjudicate claims in the courts, the government offered a range of schemes to offset that harm, including the “paycheck protection program” and “employee retention tax credits.” Many Baptists said this looked like government funding of churches and refused to take the offer. Others said this was compensation for losses imposed by the government and accepted it. This was, hopefully, a once-in-a-lifetime event, and the government never shuts down churches again. But no Baptist suggested PPP fundamentally altered our beliefs about taxpayer support of churches.
Some state convention schools have accepted school choice loans. The federal government offers loans to students, which the student can spend at any institution that meets certain fiscal requirements. Some state-convention-supported Baptist colleges have decided that student choice breaks the link to government support. Others have refused any government-backed loans. But, again, no one suggests giving up the Baptist principles in the BFM.
Some state conventions work with wards of their state. The New Testament commands churches “to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Kids in “foster care” are wards of the state, and each state sets the rules for working with them. Dealing with the “parents” of these children is dealing with the government that makes choices for them. But even then, they each draw a line; they are constantly aware that the government intrudes more than it ever did before, and such ministry may become impossible if the government asks them to violate their beliefs.
Historically, national-level SBC efforts have been limited to education and missions. In these two ministry areas, the government does not require the church to interface with state power. For example, we can minister to refugees in the United States without taking government funds.
Thus, even in these “close call” areas, Baptists have never claimed that Christ’s Kingdom can be “extended and amplified” by taxpayer-supported dollars. Our national missions and education efforts have tried to avoid sending mixed messages about church and state. Until now.
Government Money Always Comes With Strings Attached
Finally, Wax promises we can advance Christ’s Kingdom if the government does not attach strings: “If the government’s resources dictate the terms of use in ways that compromise our conviction, they must always be rejected.”
Even without an investigation into the details of this program, this should raise a red flag.
Let’s ask a practical question: Do government contracts ever come with no strings attached? Answer? Not a chance.
In fact, the State Department’s contract for refugee resettlement explicitly prohibits proselytizing.
“The Department of State has cooperative agreements with nine domestic resettlement agencies to resettle refugees. While some of the agencies have religious affiliations, they are not allowed to proselytize” (State Department Website).
And World Relief is (apparently) required to take the government’s line: “[World Relief] strongly discourage[s] any form of proselytizing (attempting to coerce or convert someone to your religion).”
They suggest some methods of “evangelism” might not be proselytizing, but it’s not evangelism if it doesn’t seek to convert to the gospel of Jesus Christ. When push comes to shove, the government paymaster is going to win that debate.
So, let’s get this straight: Send Relief is accepting money from a program that prohibits explicit gospel proclamation.
How does that square with the Great Commission? Under this contract, it’s the gospel of Joe Biden, not King Jesus, that is being advanced.
As a lifelong Southern Baptist, it is amazing to me that I need to make this statement, but here we are: SBC “missionaries” should never take any deal that hints at discouraging conversion.
What Happens Next? The SBC Must Hold NAMB Accountable
Wax says NAMB will reject challenges that interfere with its convictions. But laying down the power of the cross to supply the financial needs for cooperative church ministry already compromises our convictions.
If NAMB is willing to ignore the Baptist Faith & Message on this issue, the other theological convictions will fall, too.
Southern Baptist churches must send messengers to Dallas who will demand accountability. If we fail to draw the line here, we risk following the same downward trajectory that has led other denominations into compromise.
The power of the cross will always be greater than the power of government funding. Baptists must choose the cross.
And it’s time to hold the line on the side of the cross.
— This article originally appeared at the wonderful Center for Baptist Leadership, which you should follow. Jon Whitehead is a practicing attorney and a trustee of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).
Thank you for sharing this. We have to be vigilant and refuse to compromise as Send Relief has done.
I personally thought it was wrong for my church to take the Paycheck Protection monies. We should have refused to shut down and we should have depended on God to meet our needs. Maybe that's why our pastors refuse to speak out on any cultural issue other than abortion.