Just before the convention in Louisville we were told that there would be a state editor present at every meeting of the GCRTF. That changed during the week of the convention to Southern Baptist being informed that information would be discussed with the press immediately after the closed meetings of the GCRTF. Now that the meetings have been in full swing we find that one state editor is given information. The GCRTF found the one voice that would herald their news releases in The Florida Baptist Witness. The Witness heralded the GCRTF information for all to see and it was evident that James Smith, the editor, was their go to guy with everything concerning GCRTF information. Problem was, James Smith was not in the meetings and did not have access to the data. He merely was an amplifier for whatever was released to him for the SBC at large.
Questions were raised on various issues, and those questions were quickly dismissed as either people “pushing back” because of lack of trust, or people just trying to cause turmoil in the process because they did not want to change. When the questioner was perceived as asking questions because of “push back” he/she was told to trust our leaders. I know that I wanted to trust them, and I certainly do think those representing us on the GCRTF have the best interest of the SBC at heart. When it was perceived the questioner did not want change the questioner was reminded that we were no longer living in the 1950′s. Certainly no one believes that we can have felt boards and the tired pictures of the 50′s if we are going to minister to families with small children. However, those questioning the data were perceived as either pushing back or just not wanting change. When certain data was questioned that came from those within our entities people were painted as being suspicious of our entities.
Well….we have a blunder. It seems, according to this story, we have bad data that is the basis for the one major recommendation. The GCRTF has recommended that NAMB be decentralized and priority placed on reaching major metropolitan areas outside of the “old south states”. In making this recommendation, the task force used information for its data that was skewed because of an oversight in compiling the data. Thus, the decision was based on what the GCRTF thought was sound data. The task force went forward with a recommendation as outlined on page 19 of the report. The report presents that two-thirds of CP dollars was spent on one-third of the population. It was reported that 3515 missionaries were assigned to reach 108.7 million people. The report then states that one-third of CP dollars is used on two-thirds of the population. That means, according to the report, that 1735 missionaries are charged with reaching 195.3 million people.
When I saw 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 have found that the numbers were incorrect. The NAMB reported new data and explained the mistake. It turns out that we actually have 2573 missionaries serving in the old south, which was originally reported as 3515. We also found out that we have 2733 missionaries serving in the new work states. That means the pie charts, found on page 19 of the GCRTF report, and all of the financial data is skewed since two state conventions were reported twice in the original data. There was something else reported in this released data by NAMB that was not ever mentioned in the GCRTF report. That is we have 133 missionaries serving in Canada. If one reads the report the only mention of Canada is the following:
Speaking of reaching major cities, 80% of the 33.7 million people who live in Canada live in metropolitan regions. While we give priority to planting churches in the cities of North America, we cannot forget the nation to the north of us, where there is an estimated 76% lostness and we have only 270 churches to penetrate this lostness.
Reading the report without knowing the stats one would believe there are no NAMB missionaries in that country. However, we have 133 missionaries already deployed and serving in that country. If one were to do some simple multiplication and division, it would be easy to see there is one church per 2700 people in the old south versus one church per 24000 in the new work areas. Certainly we need to focus on church planting in the new work areas and also Canada. No one will deny that we need to do this. However to base a recommendation on skewed numbers is something the committee needs to revisit.
Solution to this Situation
First, the GCRTF needs to acknowledge that their data contained inaccurate information. This task force made a recommendation based on getting more money to the unreached, or new work areas. When in reality, according to the corrected NAMB report, “more than three-fourths (77 percent) of the $62 million NAMB distributed throughout the US and Canada in 2009 went to areas where Southern Baptist church presence is the least.” While NAMB has acknowledged its mistake the GCRTF has yet to acknowledge this as an issue.
Second, the GCRTF needs to make public the stats they used to make their other recommendations. I do not believe that the GCRTF has intentionally misled anyone. I believe they honestly did not realize the mistake in the data. However, this mistake calls into question the data they used concerning their entire report. By releasing all of the data they used, if there are other mistakes, then we can certainly point them out and allow the GCRTF to correct it before their final report in May.
Third, the GCRTF needs to learn from their mistake. Back in a June 3 conference call with the editors of; The Florida Baptist Witness, Georgia’s Christian Index, Illinois Baptist, and Southern Baptist TEXAN Dr. Hunt stated there was going to be a press person present in their meetings in an effort to be transparent to SB. However, later the GCRTF would not allow any one to sit in, because they stated everyone needed to feel free to state their feelings. If a reporter sat in on these meetings, he/she may have caught the mistake before the recommendation came out. As it is, the recommendation is very suspect and it seems will be an area of vulnerability for the entire GCRTF report passing in Orlando. By allowing a reporter from one of the state news organizations, or Baptist Press, to sit in the meetings the flow of information could be controlled by the task force, as they will agree up front the items open to the public for discussion.
Fourth, the GCRTF needs to release a financial statement revealing the funds spent on various items such as statistical research. This task force requested and received $250,000.00 for their services. I do not care whether the members were flown in with private planes and they ate steak and lobster at every meeting. That is not my concern, though I am sure some would be outraged. My concern is that we paid for research and if this is what we paid for, then what other kind of research have we overpaid? Also, is there any research that is independent of the SBC? Should we not have allowed independent research groups to perform the research for us? I mean, we have $250k in the bank to help pay for the research. By using our own research we open ourselves up the the type of dysfunction we see in this “mistake” made in the NAMB report.
Fifth, the GCRTF needs to revisit their recommendation concerning the seven regions. It seems that the GCRTF has based their entire process on the local church being king. However, their strategy at no place involves the local church. The only places the local church is involved is in the area of training current church leaders for network strategist. Everything else centers around the NAMB formulating a strategy to find church planting pastors to fund them through NAMB to go and plant churches. Thus, the local church is completely left out.
Do I believe the GCRTF will engage all five of these suggestions? No, I do not. However, it would go along way for SB if they would at least make available the rest of their data, and publicly acknowledge this blunder.
Interesting!
Surprising? No. But interesting, yes. And it does nothing to alter my thinking WRT the applicability of Jeremiah 7:16.
Tim:
I wish that the task force would have been more transparent in its work. But they chose to operate with a virtual “news blackout” which made it very difficult to penetrate what was going on. That is why so many people are “blindsided” now by the interim report.
—-
I don’t think this logic adds up as it relates to work in North America:
Givens:
1. The SBC is broken. Our Baptisms are declining. We need to step up evangelism and church planting — especially in pioneer areas and large urban centers
2. The NAMB is the key SBC-wide agency for church planting and evangelism in North America
3. The NAMB needs to be “released” so it can put more boots on the ground in areas (such as large cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco) to do church planting and evangelism
Therefore:
It is incumbant on the state conventions to come up with a $50,000,000 unfunded mandate to fix the problem.
———
During these tough economic times whatever re-organization the task force makes should allow greater economies in our work. We should be trying to trim down and be more efficient. Or, at the very least, the re-org should be budget neutral. Instead, the task force is calling for $50,000,000 of additional spending in the form of an unfunded mandate placed on the states.
I think the discussion regarding whether one agrees or disagrees with the task force’s recommendation regarding the NAMB is largely academic. That is because, in any case, no one has the money to pay for it.
We have a problem. Now let’s work TOGETHER to find a solution.
Roger K Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
I’ve said it everywhere else, so I’ll say it here. The failure which screams the loudest, among SBC churches, is the fact that millions and millions of “members” have joined our churches and are not being discipled. Hence, any report which purports to address a resurgence of the Great Commission .. to MAKE DISCIPLES .. and which does NOT address that very issue is itself NOT about the Great Commission. It is about cooperation and nothing more. And, at that, cooperation the way the leaders want to see you do it.
The other elephant in the room is that GOD supplies the SBC and its churches with both people and money, and if we’re not doing a good job with either one, He’s apt to dry up our supply. Which leaves us trying to apply our own operational band-aids to what seems, to me, to be a fatal wound.
Brother Roger,
Just a couple of thoughts. I agree with you that we have a problem and we need to work together to fix it. You will not get any argument from me in that department. Now we just need to define what is meant by “working together” Some say that working together is coming together and debating the issues and let the issues that make the most sense move forward in a consensus of those involved. Problem with that thought is if all of the information that brought about the consensus is flawed, then the group is moving TOGETHER with flawed data. Thus, their direction is more apt to be flawed. Is it “working together” that calls for silence concerning moving forward with flawed data as an underlying foundation for a recommendation? The next question that may be raised concerns the weight of the data concerning the recommendation. How much was the recommendation dependent on the data? Well, according to the report the entire recommendation concerning NAMB was made because of the data received. Now we find the data was flawed and the ones supplying the data have acknowledged it but the ones making the recommendation that depended on this data are silent. Shouldn’t there be at least an acknowledgment of the flaw and some type of reconciling motion? However, what do you see from some of the members? You see one post on his face book a quote by Carl Henry, then describe the discussion surrounding the GCR as “silly/sad”. That is the height of arrogance displayed concerning the revelation of false data.
Now, do not get me wrong. I want to “work together” but that terminology for some of our leaders comes to mean; “I want your suggestions merely because it gives the impression I am listening but in reality I already have my mind made up of what I want to do”. That is seen when flawed data is pointed out and a response of quietness comes from those leaders. So, it makes no difference how much I want to “work together” it has to be reciprocated by our leaders.
One other thing. Our GCRTF needs to heed some suggestions given by others. We now have the Georgia Baptist Convention Executive Committee officially on record as being against this preliminary report’s recommendations. You can read about it here. It seems that if we truly want to “work together” that we have pastors expressing their concerns. I understand also that Alabama may be sensing a need to make a report also. Please understand, Dr. White is on the GCRTF and his Executive Committee has stated their opposition to this report. That is strong as battery acid, as we say here in NC. The Executive Committee is not made up of State Exec. it is local pastors.
As for the $50 mil. I believe you will find in the corrected data that it is not $50 mil but $62 mil. If you look at the link I believe you will also find that 77% of the $62 mil is in the “new work” states and not in the “old south” states.
Brother Bob,
As you have correctly put it the Great Commission is about “making disciples”. That is done in the local church and there is nothing in the report that assists the local church to do her mission. As a matter of fact, the only thing about the local church is found in the planting of the churches. Where does the report lay that responsibility? At the feet of NAMB. If the church is king we certainly are surrendering church autonomy to a national entity. It seems one of the GCRTF members called that “bad parachurch”.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Good catches. We must have been thinking about some of the same things during the last few weeks. I have an article coming out on Impact that speaks to some of the missing principles that immerge in your last few paragraphs.
The local church is getting lip service with these recommendations….and folks need to understand why.
Blessings,
Chris
Pastor Tim:
We may see things slightly differently but any difference between us is slight.
My main point is that I think the onus is on the task force to show that — given the problem that we all agree we have — their proposed solution is the best solution.
1. What are the alternatives that they have investigated and rejected in terms of re-organizing the NAMB?
2. What other funding models have they looked at?
3. Why is it that it is not feasible to re-organize the NAMB to achieve greater efficiency such that the state conventions don’t have to come up with $50,000,000 (or $62,000,000) of NEW money? If we are going to have a new organizational model across all of the SBC agencies — including associations, state conventions, and SBC-wide agencies — why does that model necessarily have to cost more? Why can’t underperforming ministries be shuttered and “more worthy” ministries (such as church planting/evangelism) be beefed up? I think the task force should show us a pro-forma budget for a “typical” old-line state convention for the year 2015 and a pro-forma budget for a pioneer state convention for the year 2015 that, in each instance, shows deltas between the current budgets and the 2015 budgets. The task force report has to be linked to the real world. Once we see this then at least there will be something tangible on the table to enable discussion to start. As it is now, the NAMB proposal is not realistic so it is not yet necessary to argue it pro or con on its merits.
I’m from Silicon Valley. As we used to say when talking about stuff that was detached from reality, “this thing is Vaporware”.
Again, the task force has to sit down with the leadership of the state conventions and pound out something that is (a) a workable compromise between all parties, and (b) realistic.
The task force’s vision is correct and prescient. Their recommendations shouldn’t go down the tubes because of incomplete staff work in terms grasping with budget realities.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Brother Chris,
I look forward to your thoughts on this. I will tell you something you may want to look for. I understand there are other flaws in the motions. One flaw is a state Exec that serves on the GCRTF in a conversation with DOM’s has said that not all cooperative agreements will need to be renegotiated. Watch for it to come out soon.
Brother Roger,
First, you can call me either Brother Tim or just Tim. You do not have to call me Pastor Time. While I am a pastor, I do not believe I serve in that capacity here with you guys. :) But, thank you for the respect.
Second, You are correct we are presenting only a “slight difference”. You state; “My main point is that I think the onus is on the task force to show that — given the problem that we all agree we have — their proposed solution is the best solution.” My question would be; If the data is flawed, why is their proposed solution the best? Don’t get me wrong, there are many great minds serving on the task force. I respect everyone of them. But when you make recommendations based on flawed data it has to mean that the recommendation is flawed in some way. That is the same as saying; ‘do not confuse me with the facts.’ It has been pointed out that the data is skewed by the ones who were charged with providing the data. The task force has yet to acknowledge they have made this recommendation based on flawed data. Which brings me to believe these recommendations were in the hopper before they looked at the data and they needed something they could point to in order to bring a recommendation. IOW, this is something that someone wanted from the start and it is ‘Katie-bar-the-door’ now if you think it is going to change.
Blessings,
Tim
I do not understand why the GCRTF would not want to take whatever time necessary to create a recommendation that excites the SBC at every level.
The GCRTF Report needs more than an affirmative vote in Orlando to be successful. If state conventions and associations are not in favor of it the unintended consequences of voting for the GCRTF Report may become LESS $ forwarded to the SBC by the states as state conventions and churches make the decision to reallocate their giving.
Do we really have to do all the restructuring and reallocation suggested in the GCRTF report just to give the IMB and extra 1%?
We need to move forward carefully with as much enthusiastic support as possible from everylevel in the SBC if we want a restructuring of the SBC to have a truly positive impact.
Allen Calkins
St. Louis, MO