One Pastor’s Analysis of the GCRTF Report
Posted byThere are various analysis of the GCRTF report. Some are saying things that the report has not said while others are merely expressing degrees of agreement and disagreement. The following analysis is merely one pastor of 40,000 that has read the report and considers the recommendations. I want to begin by saying that I agree we as the SBC need to do something. Thus, I am not against the need to look at what we are doing and realign things that need realigning. I am excited that we are doing this and I look forward to being a part of the changes that may come. I offer the following, not as a critic of the work of the committee, but as a concerned pastor.
The first recommendation presents a call for all Southern Baptist to rally around a new vision statement. It should be a vision to fulfill the Great Commission and we should have it clearly defined. The statement includes the word “Missional” which seems to be a buzz word among the younger pastors. We now have it in a vision statement even though there is no clearl definition of the word. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF)has been using this term for years. According to this blog they have been using “missional” to express a holistic ministry. For the CBF one would read the term “missional” to express a “social gospel” ministry. Our GCRTF has presented the statement; “As a convention of churches, our Missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.”
A couple of observations: first, as I stated above, there needs to be a clear definition of “Missional” before we can adopt this statement. Some years in the past I rode with Dr. Ed Stetzer from his hotel to the conference site where he was about to make a presentation. I asked him about this word as Dr. Stetzer is the one credited with the introduction of this word in the vernacular of Southern Baptist. He told me that Evangelicals were now using the word to mean most anything. Second, this vision statement could be used by any evangelical denomination. The Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, even the the non-Christian sect, the Mormons could adopt the vision statement without clearly defining the terms. I believe there needs to be some definitions clearly communicated in the report coming in May and the statement would sit well using the word “baptizing” in some portion. The Great Commission Resurgence without “baptize” is really, not completing the Great Commission.
The second recommendation is a one where my good friend Dr. Bart Barber and I have a slight disagreement. Dr. Barber offers a great analysis of this report and I encourage our readers to read both Part 1 and Part 2. This recommendation presents that the NAMB should be “reinvented and released”. This means a wholesale reinvention of this entity. While we would all say there need to be some changes in the NAMB, I am not sure we can say that the Disaster Relief section is not performing its tasks. The report calls for the NAMB to be divided into seven regions for the purpose of church planting. I am all for church planting. As a matter of fact I am currently working with a group in our area trying to target Muslims in a church plant. If we divide the NAMB into these seven regional departments, then will that not create a competitive edge between NAMB, the local State Convention, the local association, and the local church in trying to plant a church? This report calls for the cooperative agreements to be dissolved in a four year period. But, wasn’t the cooperative agreements put in place to avoid duplication of work? I see a glaring problem with this call. Do the state conventions not have to agree to release these missionaries to the NAMB? Of course some may say if they do not release them, then the state conventions can assume the cost.
Dr. Barber has clearly pointed out that we should not make decisions based on perceived future problems. I agree that we should not look to the future with the fear of a train wreck coming. However, the Bible does encourage us in Luke 14:28 to count the cost before we engage in something. Dr. Barber and I are good friends and we just disagree. He will encourage everyone to vote for this report and I would like to present that I encourage a vote for this recommendation with a few amendments if the GCRTF brings back this report without any changes. What would those changes be? First, remove the “reinventing” language. That gives the impression that NAMB is broken and is not working. That is not the case. Are there areas that NAMB can do better? Certainly! If the GCRTF is serious about “releasing” then make this recommendation to the NAMB trustees about dividing the Church Planting division into seven areas. Release the new NAMB President to come in and move this plan forward.
Also, the cooperative agreements should be worked out better for state conventions that are dependent on the NAMB for their existence. We should not forsake the very states and territories we are trying to help in order for some mega-church pastor to brag about a church he has planted in a major city. We need to do better when it comes to planting churches. For example, when a church decides to financially partner with NAMB to plant a church in a city the funds will be considered Great Commission Giving. Fine, I can live with that. However, for the convention to term that “cooperative effort” then the church in partnership with NAMB should choose and appoint the staff of the plant. The staff should not be already chosen by the church and then look to NAMB to release $250,000.00 to the project.
The third recommendation seems to be a formula for a summer convention meeting that will be hotter than any June day in Houston. The recommendation makes it available for the IMB to cross over into the US to target people groups that originated in areas outside of our borders. While this recommendation appears inoculate on the surface when it is unpacked there remains much that can cause problems.
For example, what happens when a church decides to target, let us say, a Korean and a Brazilian people group? With the way Church Planting is today we have various forms of people group targeting going on. The state convention I serve increased their Church Planting funding from $2.4 million to $4 million. Within the boundaries of North Carolina our state convention is targeting Korean and Brazilian people groups. My state convention targets a Korean and Brazilian people group and uses a small group that completes the basic church planting course to do so. My local association is using funds we give from our church to target this same community of Korean and Brazilian people groups. The NAMB targets, under the regional set-up, the same Korean and Brazilian people group using a church planting team from whatever regional seminary they may partner with. The IMB targets the same two people groups in this area using a church planting team from one of the seminaries. Do you see how this church planting ball bounces? We have the local church planting churches, we have the local association planting churches, we have the state convention planting churches we have NAMB planting churches and we have the IMB planting churches. I just do not see this recommendation coming to fruition without some cooperative agreement included.
The fourth recommendation, it appears, releases funds by dropping in the laps of the state conventions the Cooperative Program promotion and stewardship education. It seems the GCRTF believes that the CP funds that is used in the Executive Committee to promote the CP should be the responsibility of the state conventions. Thus, this recommendation frees up funds in the Executive Committee. However, it is the next recommendation that makes this recommendation so dangerous.
Certainly we can come to some agreement between the state conventions and the Executive Committee about the promotional cost of the CP. Would it not make sense that working together and sharing the cost of this promotion would mean a less expensive venture on everyone concerned? However, to avoid duplication I can see the wisdom of this recommendation. Of course the GCRTF seems to believe these funds, released from the Executive Committee, will place the Missionaries needed to target the international people groups in the US. I believe we will find out that there needs to be more funds to fulfill this objective.
The fifth recommendation brings about, what I would believe, is the most historic change—the naming of funds that has been accepted through the years as designated giving. This name change of the designated gifts to “Great Commission Giving” brings about more questions than the answers given.
First, will there be a promotion of a special offering or a giving plan known as “Great Commission Giving”? What entity will be responsible for such a promotion? Second, what are the implications of this “Great Commission Giving” on the CP giving? Will a church have to choose between giving funds to the CP and the “Great Commission Giving” fund? Third, Could this not leave the state convention competing with the entities of the SBC for funds? It seems that churches could be placed in the position of bypassing the state conventions giving their funds to “Great Commission Giving”. If the research this writer cites is correct, then the churches would follow the lead of the elected president by giving less than 5% to the CP and a much larger amount to Great Commission Giving and basically break the Cooperative Program. It would be tacitly observed to be cooperative giving, but is it? This appears to be the beginning of a problem that will not be realized until a decade from now. It is called a societal giving platform that within the next decade will probably result in a diminished CP giving. This result will then be left to the church to decide with a probable “giving plan” that will pale in comparison to the Baptist General Convention of Texas’ giving plan.
The sixth recommendation, calls for IMB funding to go from 50 to 51 percent. This one percent would come from the Executive Committee’s portion of the Cooperative Program pie. These funds will shore up the increase on the IMB, but will it be sufficient? Dr. Rankin is already reporting the trustees are reducing the missionary force to 5000. If this recommendation passes, then one question begs to be answered. Will the increase of missionaries in the US be part of the 5000 count? It seems that approximately $2 million will not be sufficient for the identified international groups in the US. Would it not be better for the IMB to do a study of what it would cost and report to the convention this amount? Then we could adjust the increase based on sound analysis.
As I come to a conclusion I want to look to the future. I am not against the GCRTF report. I look forward to this report coming to the convention floor. This report is one that is needed and I believe we can work out the differences. Do I see any of my differences as a hill worth dying over? No, I will state my differences and express as best I can my reasoning. The report is a good report and it has many hours of prayer and analysis under girding the work and presentation. We are Southern Baptist and that is how we are able to disagree and still be agreeable. We will study the report, go to Orlando, state our differences, vote our conscience, then go to Shoney’s and have a Hot Fudge Cake. Then we will spend time at Disney World and come home ready to implement the items we decide has validity to our local church in order to see a Great Commission Resurgence become a reality
24 Comments
March 4th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
To say NAMB is not broken is like saying a car without an engine is not broken because the windshield wipers work.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Bro. Tim,
What!? We disagree and yet we are still friends? Aren’t we supposedly the camp that requires absolute uniformity on EVERYTHING as a test of fellowship and cooperation?
I could go on for a while, but I’ll just give you one thing to chew on with regard to the NAMB situation: Doctrinal and pragmatic accountability. State convention employees ought to answer to their respective state conventions for what they believe, what they do, and how well they do it. National denominational employees ought to answer to the messengers of the SBC Annual Meeting.
We have a few state conventions, my brother, for which one could hardly be suitably accountable to the state convention while at the same time being suitably accountable to the national SBC, for the theology and ideology of a few state conventions is at-odds with that of the national SBC. Yet CP money travels through Cooperative Agreement pipelines to fund the work of state convention employees.
To avoid connectionalism, I believe that there ought to be a clear division between state convention employees and SBC employees, such that each person ought to know clearly and for certain to whom he or she is doctrinally accountable.
March 4th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
First it would seem more efficient for NAMB to be divided into seven differing regions, just as the IMB is divided in to regions. Within those seven regions the board could then streamline ministry and church planting in those specific areas. The IMB works the same way. If there was say a global region then some group or area could possibly get under looked or left out. By having regions you have certain people in that certain region looking out for certain areas of need. It might take some time just as the new revamping of the IMB is taking. Patience might have to be a virtue some of us learn.
Second, the fourth recommendation you discussed you asked a valid question about cooperation in church planting and in essence duplicating and spending more money. This all boils down to cooperation at all levels. I believe that local church planting is the ministry of the local church… but does it cost money for a believer to go and witness say to the Brazilians and the Koreans or in your case Muslims (go you all). If they decide to come to faith in Christ can they not come to your local church until enough believers of their ethnicity come to faith to start a “house church”, hopefully in their original language or so they choose. This would seem to cut down on a lot of spending. What i see here is free. I have seen it done on the field in many instances. Why do we need to spend millions to plant churches if we take this approach? I think this could also affect your point issues with recommendation 6.
The US already has millions of M’s. Each believer is a M. The 5000 cut is a deep cut in the Global EV mission. But here in the states we are not short on Believers taking the Gospel.
” It seems that approximately $2 million will not be sufficient for the identified international groups in the US.” It could be if believers were willing to pack up and move to a new location in the states find a job (tent maker ring a bell for anyone. I know at the current moment finding jobs might be tough) and witness to a certain people group. House church again…Free (unless you have potluck every week like a good SBC church
)
Just a few of my thoughts. And brother I know you are not against the GCRTF. I
Jeremiah
March 4th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Brother Brent,
I reckon that I just disagree. Southern Baptist has one of the best Disaster Relief organizations in the world and it is located under the umbrella of the NAMB. Ever heard of World Changers? Ever needed demographic information? Ever thought about those that organize Crossover? Many things the NAMB does. Now, if you are referencing just church planting, then I will agree it needs improvement. However, that does not mean that NAMB is broken.
Brother Bart,
Seeing we are supposed to agree on everything in order to pass our test of uniformity, then I will agree with you on your candy that you threw my way.
However, I believe it is more than just clearly defining who is accountable to whom? I will agree that meshing of the NAMB pay for missionaries working with a state convention and the state paying the other portion smacks hard of connectionalism. However, the cooperative agreements are in place in our smaller conventions. These state conventions are autonomous entities and if they decide not to release NAMB from the agreement we may see something on the level of Missouri come our way.
Now, let me ask you something else. I know you are recovering from some sickness and your fingers have been idle for a couple of days. How would NAMB handle Disaster Relief if it is decentralized? Also, does it appear that the GCRTF, by decentralizing NAMB is going back to pre-NAMB operations?
Brother Jeremiah,
While you are correct about the freedom of witnessing, the GCRTF is not speaking about a church plant the way you described it. You paint such an idealistic picture, but I can tell you on a personal level, church planting is not that idealistic.
Also, I agree that house churches are a great concept that should be explored. One other thing is the patience that you called for us to have. I agree we need that patience, but I cannot see how moving to a seven region system will get more money to the field. We still have the central location of Alpharetta and then we will have offices in seven more regions? Where is the cost savings on that?
Blessings,
Tim
March 5th, 2010 at 2:14 am
Tim,
Yes, I’ve heard of World Changers, Disaster Relief (I’ve got a yellow jacket), and Crossover, and no I’m not just referencing church planting. My point is that just because some things might be working doesn’t mean that as a whole, it’s not broken. From my perspective, it is that logic that keeps dying churches from reaching those who are far from Christ. On another note, I am not sure that “reinventing or restructuring” is the answer for NAMB.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:16 am
What can i say i am an Idealist that takes Church planting straight from scripture. Just wondering though what did i say that was Idealistic? What is your personal Level experience in the matter?
You said ” I agree we need that patience, but I cannot see how moving to a seven region system will get more money to the field. We still have the central location of Alpharetta and then we will have offices in seven more regions? Where is the cost savings on that?” Fist I don’t think it is about getting more money to the field rather it is about streamlining the money that they have. I don’t know if they would say have an office or just a regional coordinator in a specific region that would head up the CP. But this in itself could cut down on money spent to send people to areas for observation and research. We could already have someone on the ground doing that in preparation for a CPer to come in. example… The IMB is based in Richmond and yet they have regional coordinators and it seems to be working pretty well. That coordinator knows exactly what the need is in their respective geographical area. They have the job written for the M to take, the M moves in and begins work (shorten version of course). Why should the NAMB streamline not look similar?
Jeremiah
March 5th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Brother Brent,
First, the logic for NAMB should not be confused with the logic for a dying church. Why? NAMB is not a church, it is an organization. Second, according to your logic we need to throw the baby out in the bath water. But, you come back and say that you do not believe that “reinventing and releasing” is the answer either. So it does appear that we are speaking the same things. I believe you will note in my article that I have said such. I just cannot see how seven smaller regions will enhance the mission.
Brother Jeremiah,
Your idealism shines through in your analysis of the cost for church planting only be limited to house churches. Your statement; “I don’t think it is about getting more money to the field rather it is about streamlining the money that they have.” That may be your thinking but that is not what we have been told by the GCRTF. They have consistently stated it was about getting more $$$’s to the mission field.
As for the regions, I see that the IMB has 14 or 15 regions. Your idealism seems to shine through in that there are regional offices in each region. For us to set up seven regions there will be regional offices and office personnel to staff these offices.
Now as to my experience. I have been a pastor since 1990. I have tried to lead the different churches I have led to plant churches. However, there has been major push back every time. I have had to proceed slowly in order to bring along the people without tearing up the church. I was mildly successful in SC when I was able to plant a preaching point in the local trailer park that is still going today. I have just got to my current location and I am currently trying to plant a church here.
So, Jeremiah, I have laid my cards on the table, let me ask your experience in all of this.
Blessings,
Tim
March 5th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Tim,
One thing that needs to be highlighted again is that this is not the final report. To this point, the task force has only presented a “progress” report. Hopefully, we can keep our opinions flexible and changeable until the report is finalized with specific recommendations.
Then we can go to Shoney’s…
March 5th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Brother Joe,
You are correct this is a preliminary report. However, they reported that this was the ground work and that more would come to define what they presented. They did not present it in a way that these were floating items that would be removed. I do not know what the final report will look like but I certainly believe we need to assess the initial one. If I have come across as drawing lines in the sand on this, that is not my intention. I believe my article will read in a way that we are waiting their final report and it lists some things I would like to see in it. The comments are specific because the report does call for the NAMB to be divided into 7 regions. That, I do not believe, will be taken out of the recommendation.
Blessings,
Tim
March 5th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Brother Joe,
One more thing. When we go to Shoney’s I will buy.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I have a question. And I admit I don’t know the answer to this.
In the current scheme — with “cooperative agreements”– are the church planters / evangelists employees of the IMB or the state conventions?
A. If the answer is “both” then I agree that there is a problem with accountability and control.
B. If the answer is the NAMB, then I don’t see why there now needs to be “cooperative” agreements since the NAMB could send people to work in a city — say Oklahoma City — without any kind of written agreement.
C. If the answer is the states, then I think it would make more sense for the states to totally fund those employees rather than having to send money (via the exec committee) to the NAMB only to have it refunded. This would mean that the states would be sending less to the exec committee but this would not result in any decrease in missions’ activity — just a rationalization in the span of management and control.
—-
Here is an ancillary question. The task force was vague on what their proposal actually is. Is it implicit as part of their plan to phase out “cooperative agreements” that states will be picking up the whole tab for whatever evangelism / church planting they do within their own boundaries? If so, then I guess the system will devolve to this: [1]“Old line” states will do their evangelism and pay for it themselves with some net decrease in CP funding sent to Nashville. [2]For “pioneer” states the NAMB will fund the work directly, since those states can’t possibly afford to finance the work themselves, and since, by definition under the proposal, there will no longer be “cooperative agreements” in place between the NAMB and pioneer states [or any other states for that matter].
All I know is this, to the extent that people are working with “two bosses” this won’t work. You can’t have people working on dotted-line relationships if those relationships span boundaries outside a single fiscal reporting structure. It is OK to loan a guy to one of your subsidiaries as long as that subsidiary’s financial statements are reported as an operating unit of yours. But if you have two separate reporting entities you need contracts and the people working have to have a single boss.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Tim,
The recommendation is for a Missional vision to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is clearly a vision for we as Southern Baptists. So, I don’t think concern is warranted over the term being too inclusive (Mormons, etc) for use or that it somehow lacks anything distinctively Baptist, given the context of the recommendation, it is a great commission resurgence for Southern Baptists. I found page 11 helpful, where it talks about Missional as “scattering” people into the community to “advance the Gospel.” So I take it the basic point is that churches need to be viewing their members as missionaries to the community, which is quite positive given that such a vision is founded upon regenerate membership.
Thanks,
Adam
March 5th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
No sooner do I ask a question than the answer shows up!
Today at lunch [Taco Bell] I’m paging through my Baptist Messenger.
[Yes, I guess I'm a dinosaur because in addition to reading it online I still get a physical printed copy in the mail]
In Dr. Jordan’s PERSPECTIVE column in yesterday’s Messenger [March 4,2010] is the following: “This [reassignment of resources and personnel] is a major shift since most NAMB missionaries are church planters and state convention staff WHO ARE JOINTLY EMPLOYED.”
{I’ve added capitalization for emphasis}
Also, Dr. Jordan goes on to say that here in Oklahoma the state convention is going to have to absorb about $1 million annually due to the loss of the NAMB funding per the “cooperative agreements”.
RK Simpson — Oklahoma City
March 5th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
For those of you still following this thread: Take a look at the Baptist Press website and read the articles by Scott Brewer and Glen Land. They address many of the questions I raised in comment #11.
One thing they said is that most people in the SBC don’t really know what is going on. Well, I certainly include myself in that group. I have a lot of catching up to do to intelligently size up the task force’s NAMB recommendation.
Pending more understanding, I no longer endorse the task force bullet item related to the NAMB. The idea of doing away with these Byzantine “cooperative agreements” sounds OK on the surface — but I was not aware of the ramifications.
The task force has more work to do in presenting a COMPLETE statement relating to NAMB re-organization. One of the missing components right now involves all interfaces with the state conventions.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Brother Adam,
Your point is well taken about the “Gospel”. You and I understand that we are speaking about the Jesus of the Scripture that was and is and will always be God. However, the mere wording without a grasp of what we are speaking is, as I said, very generic. As Baptist we believe that the Gospel does not stop with the presentation. Any Great Commission Resurgence without Baptism is not a biblical Great Commission.
Brother Roger,
Great find. The articles are very insightful. I will post them here for others to link.
Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on state cooperative agreements
Glen Land, former State Missions Director of Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention, on state cooperative agreements
Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, on GCRTF report
Scott Brewer, Pastor of Meadowbrook Church and President of the Northwest Baptist Convention, on GCRTF report
Bob White, Executive Director and Treasurer of the Georgia Baptist Convention, on new name for SBC giving
Norman Jameson, editor of the Biblical Recorder, the newsjournal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, on new name for SBC giving
Hope these help.
Blessings,
Tim
March 6th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Tim,
Help me understand your concern that there is no baptism to the GCR. It seems like the entire movement, being a movement comprised of Southern Baptists for Southern Baptists, entails all our important biblical distinctives, baptist among them (as well as regenerate church membership, priesthood of believers, etc). In what way, then, is it withouth baptism?
I hear what your saying, and appreciate your response, but to be honest, I do not think the wording is generic such to warrant concern. The context of the document makes it explicit that missional is about (1) understanding the lost in our backyard on page 10, which I take to amount to knowing those you are trying to reach, (2) members advancing the gospel in their communities (page 11) using that understanding entailed in (1), and (3) in a way that leads (logically and sequentially) to an increased committement to global evangelism, on page 11.
Thanks Tim, I really appreciate your willingness to help me think this through. I have not read the whole document, so there may be vagueness in other places I am missing.
Adam
March 7th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Brother Adam,
Good points. I am just not as convinced as you that this GCRTF vision statement is to be used only for the SBC. If you remember when the Baptist Sunday School Board changed its name to Lifeway they did it because the old name was too confined to reach out to a vast audience. Much of the same reasoning going on with the GCRTF in this presentation. And all one has to do now is walk into Lifeway to see the influence the at large Christian world has had on them. The Shack, TD Jakes, etc. etc.
Blessings,
Tim
March 8th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Was just stoping in to check on Mr. Rogers. He spoke at First Baptist Church of Diana (the real South) and what a priveledge it was. Reading the article I found myself skeptic. I’m always a little uneasy when an organization redifines a definition. This is the first I heard of missional so I did some research.
“in a missional community, the church is God’s sent people. That means when everything is stripped away – the building, the events, the activities, the leaders, and other identifying markers for the church – the people are the church and church is the people. Therefore, wherever God’s people are corporately or individually, there is the church. Church is at home, in the car, in the restaurant, the beach – wherever God’s people find themselves in their daily lives.
Another practical difference can be seen in the practices of the general American Christian populace. American Christians cannot be distinguished in any significant way from secular culture. Christian lifestyles and time-styles, although slightly Christianized, are virtually the same as the culture around them.There are also no noticeable differences between Christians and their secular counterparts in areas of morality and ethics. Dawn Haglund states that the church has completely adopted American culture”
http://www.theofframp.org/missional_comm.html
So Instead of addressing the problem most Christians have we start a new community and rename it misssional, and leave those who have fallen behind. Reminds me when the progressive movement changed revolution to evolution, or the restaurant that had bad food changed its name and put up a “new management” sign..
But thats just me. I believe everything has become to political and that is what divides. Its the word of God that we all fellowship in. Its the word of God that will bring the people together. How it gets there really doesnt matter.
Good to have you down south Tim.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
The task force recommendations taken as a whole will result in the isolation, marginalization or destruction of the state conventions. There are two different scenarios in this picture: one for the “old line” conventions and one for the “pioneer” conventions.
Old line conventions:
As a result of the implementation of the task force’s plan, the possible paths for funding evangelism/church planting in the “old line” state conventions is as follows:
Possible path #1 — ISOLATION: With the NAMB funding gone, the state conventions will “take over” evangelism and church planting within their own states. Because the state conventions have to adsorb that portion of the funding which was previously received from the NAMB via the “cooperative agreements”, the states will likely be forced to cut back on the CP funds they send to Nashville.
Possible path #2 – MARGINALIZATION: The NAMB will be taking over and managing the evangelism activities which were formerly joint operations with the states. The net shift in the work of the state conventions, as envisioned by the task force, is the elimination of the “core area” of evangelism/church-planting coupled with the augmentation of the “church relations job” of CP promotion and stewardship education. This marginal shift in the states’ mandate is consistent with the perception is that states are “bloated and bureaucratic” and their role in SBC life, over time, will continue to recede from “front line” activities. If one wanted to setup of a scheme to marginalize the role of the states this would be a good start: Strip them of key assignments and backfill with third order stuff such as fund raising that is more suitably sourced to vendors on per-job basis.
Pioneer state conventions:
ELIMINATION: As envisioned by the task force, the flows to the pioneer conventions which are now received via the cooperative agreements will cease. These include (a) cooperative agreements for “approved positions” which currently support the lion’s share of the salaries of people working for the state conventions and (b) cooperative agreements for “appointed positions” which currently support the lion’s share of evangelism and church planting positions in the pioneer states. Eliminating the cooperative agreements will in the first instance defund the state operations causing the state conventions to fold. Eliminating the cooperative agreements in the second instance will cause the church planting / evangelism work in the pioneer states to come under the direct auspices of the NAMB rendering the state conventions unnecessary — except for any “residual” work the pioneer state conventions are doing other than church planting and/or evangelism.
====
I like the idea of tightening up the “span of control” for employees doing work. I like the idea of the NAMB being able to rationalize the work of evangelism and church planting and put boots on the ground in critical areas independent of state boundaries. One task remaining for the task force is to “fill in the blanks” in their interim report so that that by the time we get to Orlando the benefits of a “released” NAMB won’t be accomplished by marginalizing/destroying the state conventions.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
March 8th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Tim,
If the recommendations are approved, IMB wouldn’t “send” missionaries in the U.S. in the sense that they do overseas, so that wouldn’t be a factor in the 5,000. (Per either a twitter, blog, or blog comment response by Dr. Rankin one day last week.)
March 8th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Actually, it was per his remarks to the board, as explained in Friday’s BP article.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Brother Clint,
It was good being with you guys this weekend. I am looking forward to what God is going to do within the church Body there. You are blessed by being such a part of a great group of believers. Thanks for your input here. Feel free to return anytime and express your concerns.
Brother Roger,
I pray your analysis is correct, especially about getting to the Orlando convention.
Brother Stuart,
Thanks for your input. Certainly will look to those links.
Blessings,
Tim
March 17th, 2010 at 8:28 am
[...] this report I was one that shouted; “yes, there must be changes”! My biggest concern, as explained here, was dividing NAMB into the seven regional units that the report calls for. However, we now [...]
April 25th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
[...] One Pastor’s Analysis of the GCRTF Report [...]