Entity head retirements are the main topic of discussion in this week’s podcast. The entire gang got together to discuss the implications of the retirement announcements of Dr. Jerry Rankin of the International Mission Board and Dr. Morris Chapman of the Executive Committee. Robin Foster was headed out of town for a quick vacation, which explains the unusual amount of background noise.
Listen to the podcast using the player below, or click the logo or sidebar icon to be taken to our iTunes page. After you subscribe to the podcast, do us the favor of writing a short review on iTunes, or just give us a star rating. These will help us greatly, and we appreciate it. Comment here with suggestions for how we can improve the podcast. And, as always, thanks for listening. We continue to add new listeners each week, and we’re grateful that you take the time.
Here are some links that came up during this week’s conversation:
I appreciate y’alls words about the focus of the North American Mission Board. Since 1845 it has been reorganized numerous times, and in all those years there have been precious few of the twenty leaders of the organization who ever left under good circumstances. Were they all bad leaders? I don’t think so. I think as you noted about Bart Barber’s illustration they have been tasked with a lot of things that are extra-curricular to the task of pioneer missions.
Perhaps some churches are less than enthused about the churches sending money to their state conventions who keep far too much, but send a portion to Nashville, who then send a portion to Alpharetta, who then send a portion back to the state convention, who then send yet a smaller portion to local associations which then partner with the local churches (where the money started in the first place) in order to plant a church down the road from umpteen other Baptist churches. Most local associations in the south could just cut out going around the world with the money and start the churches next door all by themselves. What we need help with is reaching those pioneer areas. Few of us are in a position to plant a church in Seatle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Toronto, etc. That’s where we want our NAMB money going instead of paying the salaries and travel expenses of umpteen bureaucrats just to give the church planting money right back to us to do what we could have done on our own anyway. I mean no offense to those church planters and leaders involved in that discombobulated process. I just think there is a better way to do it.
I believe if the NAMB could and would focus on church planting in pioneer areas, Southern Baptists would rally around the NAMB the same way we do around the IMB. There is such a desperate need for churches in those unchurched areas, and all the while we are playing shell games with CP money just shifting the vast majority of it around amongst our friends in our Southern stronghold.
Matt,
Well said! On all accounts. I really like the way you chart the trail of money. You are spot on!
Brother Matt,
One other thing that I wish we would have discussed more fully and that is the delay in the NAMB’s trustees to name a trustee search committee. It amazes me that two entities whose presidents have announced their retirements have already appointed search committees. It has been less than a week and both have their search committees in place. Their presidents are staying in place and their successor may be in place before the presidents officially walk out of the office. Then we have NAMB whose president is not in place and the committee has not appointed a search committee and this reality is one of over 30 days old. It seems the NAMB trustees are operating like a board of Deacons when the Pastor is forced out. The Deacons enjoy the power they have and are really not in any rush to get a pastor–that would remove the deacons from the spot light.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
You could be right, or it could just be that a pool of individuals or even two specific individuals are already lined up by certain powers that be to fill the attractive IMB and EC positions. Whoever gets the ball rolling or appoints the search committees are the ones who determine the new leadership. If they snooze, they lose.
With NAMB, however, I can’t imagine anyone jumping at the chance to lead an organization whose previous leaders have been forced out time and again for the last 164 years. More importantly, when you add the uncertain future of NAMB to that mix, it is possible that even with a search committee in place, they wouldn’t have any candidates to consider.
Then there is the cynical side of me that wonders if NAMB’s trustee leadership has been directed to hold off by the ever flexing muscles of the Great Commission Taskforce leadership. Ronnie Floyd certainly sent a shot across their bow the other day via the Florida Baptist Witness. If they will flex those muscles publicly, I wonder how much more flexing is being done privately. Already the chairman of the NAMB trustees has proffered the idea of merging the mission boards into a hybrid organization and then backtracked quickly with an apparent red face. I’m not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet and I hate to question the semantics of the taskforce’s comments about the matter, but I wonder if NAMB’s chairman didn’t accidentally let their cat out of the bag before the taskforce was ready to unveil part of their predetermined plans (or at least considerations). If so, that would certainly explain why NAMB leadership is holding off.
Those are my thoughts, or maybe I should say, my questions.