I will admit that there could be certain advantages to having an IMB President who has primarily been a pastor in the US. I think that a large part of the job of IMB President is to raise funds for missions and in particular special missions projects that could not otherwise be financed than through private donors. A former mega-chuch pastor would probably do really well at this aspect of the job. However, there are IMB missionaries that could probably fulfill this role just as well as anyone else.

I think that there is an issue of great importance in which an IMB Pres. who has primarily lived in the North American context. And it has little to do with how he would relate to missionaries. While an experienced missionary would be challenged by the host of different cultural issues they would face as IMB Prez, someone with little or no experience ministering cross-culturally would be at a serious disadvantage in performing a core function of his job. I think that it is of utmost importance for the IMB Prez to be able to understand the people to whom the IMB is attempting to take the gospel.

In my opinion, it is irrelevant whether the next IMB Prez is best suited for the churches stateside or the missionaries abroad. The person should be qualified for the job he or she is to undertake through the guidance and by the strength of the Lord. I think that a big part of this would be someone who has a broad understanding of the gospel and cultural contexts other than his own.

I am just …
A Simple Student @ SWBTS

P.S. I was thinking that you should write a post saying that a seminary professor/administrator should become the next IMB Prez. Then again, maybe you should write a post stating that the next President of SWBTS should be a pastor and not an academic in order to return to our roots.

I see that, as a currently long-term IMB m, I am in the minority here, but I would be fine with a pastor serving as the next president of the IMB, depending upon which other qualifications, strategies, core beliefs, and abilities he might bring to the office. I believe Jerry Rankin has done an OUTSTANDING job as our president. I love and admire him greatly. I cannot imagine that his successor, whether a missionary, a pastor, or both, could do a better job than Dr. Rankin is doing.

I have read some of the comments here and do definitely see what some of my IMB colleagues mean by expressing their disagreement with this idea. Cross-cultural ministry is definitely different than my experience as a pastor in the States. In many ways, cc ministry is more difficult and demanding. But I must hasten to say that being a pastor in the US in the 21st century is a COUNTER-cultural work and in some ways more difficult than cc ministry, in my opinion. I have not pastored in this century, but my experience before coming overseas was just as demanding as the work over here is. But is is indeed different. I am sure all here would concede that ANY work for God, done in any context, culture, or place, when done in adherence to God’s Word and in the power of His Spirit is sure to meet opposition.

I say that only to say that being a missionary doesn’t necessarily qualify someone more or less than being a pastor and vice-versa. I have met a few Ms who indicated to me that they think serving as a pastor before moving to the M field can be counter-productive. I guess that’s possible, but I disagree with the premise. I just don’t think it is appropriate to make a blanket statement about the issue.

I do whole heartily agree with what David Rogers pointed out early in the discussion. If the new IMB President were a pastor it would be a blow to many on the field who would see that as a confirmation of their fears. I must humbly say, that is a problem for the missionaries to work out with God.

If the “political machine” installed a man as IMB President to do their bidding, that would be a catastrophe, regardless of what his professional experience might be. In that case, it would matter little were he a missionary, pastor, or candlestick maker. But if GOD calls a man who happens to be a stateside pastor to serve as president of the IMB, I (and I am certain every other IMB M I know), would be whole heartily in favor.

In addition to some concerns I have in agreement with other Ms who have commented already concerning the strategic and practical implications of a pastor becoming the IMB president, I can think of a few positives:

1. I think it would help with bridging the current gap that exists between many field Ms and our supporting churches. A pastor serving in the States has a better feel for current church issues and concerns that I think I have after many years on the field.

2. As the author of this post points out, it would indeed bring in a different perspective to our IMB leadership and would reduce the possibilities of our beloved IMB becoming a “Good Ole Boys Club” like so many feel has happened in other agencies and/or even the Convention itself.

3. I would suggest that it might encourage other stateside pastors to become better tutored on the workings of the IMB and to be even more active in promoting CP and LMC as well as really getting themselves and their congregations actively involved in missions.

4. It would help thwart the notion many people still have that “missions” is some kind of mysterious work reserved only for super-Christians and beyond the comprehension and understanding of stateside believers and even stateside pastors. It’s not and we’re not. We Ms know that.

5. The IMB exists to LEAD Southern Baptists to do mission work. I can’t think of a better way to express to the person in the pew and the pulpit that missions is HIS/HER responsibility and not just for some “professional” M than actually having a pastor move into the office of the President in Richmond.

All that being said, I would add that it would seem reasonable that a pastor with at least one term overseas’ experience would be a good fit as President.

Do I wish, hope, expect that the next IMB President will be a stateside pastor. NO, I do not. Would it bother me in the least? No, assuming I could believe he was God’s man for the job in the same way I believe/know Jerry R. is God’s man right now.

* Beginning this post with the voice of Sally Fields ringing in my head…”You like me. You really, really like me…”*

Thanks for the compliment. I am in the habit of pushing buttons for a living (just ask my keyboard)

Right now I don’t have the wherewithal, or time to answer your last post…but I couldn’t resist the ‘Sally Fields’ voices in my head!

Thanks again for the challenging discussion.

Sola Gratia!

If you are really an old dinosaur and you do not know the answer to your own question, you will not believe me.

We both know that and we both know why. I too, am a dinosaur.

cb

You said in comments 73 and 75 that Keith Parks had theological problems and was not a good president of the FMB (the name then). If this is only an opinion, then I say “Everyone is entitled to an opinion.” If it is based on fact, could you please state them. Especially for those dinosaurs among the missionary corps who have a different view of the man.

So, Let’s clear this up. I hope that I have not used the word ‘office’ in my discussion of an apostle. That would have been wrong of me. When we look at the Eph passsage that mentions pastors and teachers, prophets, evangelist, and even apostles Paul does not call these postitions offices but actually refers to them as giftings for individuals to use in building up the church. Now, that SB’s have no theology for the prophet and the apostle is not my problem. The words are right there in the bible. The charismatics have abused these words and so we have done away with recognizing them altogether- that is wrong of us. Paul and Barnabas are commissioned by their local church and sent out Acts 14 calls both of them apostles. I was commissioned and sent out by SB’s I am a missionary. I am happy to leave it at that but when we talk about giftings for the work and the actual work we do I repeat that pastor and apsostle are different giftings. In the context of this post I think it is imperitive that the next President of the IMB understand this gifting and calling.
Now, how a prophet operates in the SBC today I will leave others to decide. Up until now we have decided to stone all prophets and reject any ministry which calls itself prophetic. I think this is a mistake. The word, calling, gifting is listed as being thought necessary by almighty God and I think it behoves us to figure out who these folks are, what their legitimate role is, and encourage them. But that ain’t my fight. For a clear understanding of the ‘apostolic’ role I suggest you read Guy Muse’s blog or Kenn Sorrels. Both of these fellow bloggers represent our work very well.

Thanks for relaying what happened to Dr. Eliff. He is truly a man of courage.

David

Let me affirm that we are talking about principles and not personalities. If anyone tries to pin that on you, they are wrong.

I appreciate your point of view and the dialog we have had.

God Bless

I hope no one interprets my comments on 2 years service as being in anyway whatsoever as denigrating towards Dr. Eliff. I was aware of the accident, and I don’t have anything but the utmost of respect for Dr. Eliff.

As I stated earlier to Robin, for me, this is about principles, and not personalities.