B21 Interviews New NAMB President Kevin Ezell

Ezell2I got the opportunity to sit down recently with Kevin Ezell, who has been my pastor for 14 years, my boss for 8 years, and is now the new President at the North American Mission Board (NAMB). I asked him some questions about his transition to NAMB. Here is the audio of that interview where we get a glimpse of what Kevin’s heart is and what is in store for NAMB.

Interview with Ezell


Some of the questions asked are:

  • How will NAMB put into practice the GCR recommendation to phase out the Cooperative Agreements with the State Conventions? What will NAMB’s relationship be now with the State Conventions?
  • The GCR & the SBC said that they want NAMB’s primary focus to be church planting. Has that not been NAMB’s focus?
  • Will NAMB partner with local churches of all sizes in doing church planting? Will NAMB explore partnerships with smaller SBC church planting networks?
  • Will NAMB take on a regional outlook?
  • What are 2-3 things you will try to accomplish immediately?
  • Why did Highview Baptist not support the KBC/Annie Armstrong at a high level? Will this pose a problem for you in your role at NAMB? What if every church gave like Highview?
  • How has your experience as a pastor prepared you for this role?
  • Who are your heroes and major influences?


Baptist21 is extremely excited for the future of NAMB with Kevin at the helm. We pray that by God’s grace a multitude of gospel-centered churches will be planted across this nation in the years to come!

Comments 0

  1. With the GCR recommending to end the Cooperative Agreements with state conventions what happens now to state conventions? The SBC has some states that need that cooperation to survive I would think.

    With the SBC saying that the primary focus is going to be church planting will this help younger people like myself to plant a church if they feel called?

    Great interview and am excited to see where Kevin takes NAMB and the SBC in the future. Thank you for your great site.


  2. Jon:

    Thanks for conducting this interview!

    I agree that the NAMB needs to be more efficient — prioritizing what we do. With plateauing resources (or shrinking resources) we can’t just keep on doing the “same things the same way”.

    I think the state of Nevada may be on to something — namely, collapsing the state convention and the associations into one entity. I don’t see why we need four layers of management to do church planting in the USA — i.e local churches, associations, state conventions, and the NAMB.

    Things at the NAMB are getting “on track”.

    Roger Simpson

  3. David,First, You cannot be catrein there were only 11. Actually there is great/greater biblical evidence there were as many or more than 500 who were given the GC directly by Christ just prior to the ascension.I also do not think it to be a theory at all as to baptism being the specific accountability of local NT churches. I think that you are taking a deconstructive approach to a valid biblical position toward baptism in particular. But, I do not believe you to be a deconstructionist in general.I do agree with you in saying: In practice, there is actually very little difference between my way of seeing things on these issues and your way of seeing things. Yet, in what you say immediately afterward, I think we would have to determine exactly what we were seeking to cooperate in doing in ministry or on the mission field.That which I refer to is: Personally, I don’t think the differences are significant enough to necessarily get in the way of productive cooperation in ministry and on the mission field. Now, as to my position relating to the IMB BoT. David, my position on ecclesiology and that of several of the IMB BoT,who were extremely influential in decisions at the time made, are of a different nature. You should know this from the substance of our dialogue here.And, since you bring it up, I knew what was really happening on that board and why. And, frankly my opposition as to actions taken by the IMB BoT goes all the way back to 1993 and beyond.Lastly, I ask, if you will to let me leave the IMB out of this dialogue. David, I made my stand based upon what I knew to be true. And, in all truth David, the cost of that stand to me personally, in relationships to good men who I love greatly causes me much grief and sorrow to this day. I went too far and committed sin and fell to rude behavior during that time.Therefore, what I believe about the IMB BoT and the IMB in general is beyond what I would say here in a blog comment. And finally, no matter what I say, it would be of a tainted substance due to my own failures making me unworthy to direct attention to the present needs or the past actions of the IMB.So, my brother, I will refrain from any discussion of the IMB policies in this venue and I believe you are of the character to understand why.cb

Leave a Reply