While I concur that simply following some of the earlier articles in the GCR would solve this issue, my reading today on issues relating to Article IX make the point that this probably will be a sticking point. It all depends on _how_ any reforms are carried out.

As it stands right now, there are several SBC programs that I cannot participate in (neither could either the SBC pastor who baptized me, the SBC pastor who married my wife and I, or the SBC pastor who encouraged me in my studies and work if they were starting out again). I’m currently doing other things that I can, because in my prayers I’m finding peace in patience, but what this lack is doing is pushing me further and further away from anything SBC sanctioned.

So I find the story here somewhat troubling because it has a section about “NAMB grabs momentum”, which I don’t find reassuring at all.

Looking for the silver lining, I do find it somewhat amusing that I’m dealing with distant ignorant/incompetent over-officious jerks making policy without contact with the truth (even after it is rubbed in their faces) in a few other areas of my life.

Thanks for the update and the research. Of course, my point was never to say “down with the IMB” or anything of the sort. Coming from an independent background, I see many of the positives of the IMB. These are just the sort of questions that the leadership of all SBC organizations (and all churches) ought to be prepared to answer, and ought to be proactive in answering.

Every organization from the local church to the national conventions should continually be evaluating their impact for the GC and whether their current structure both embodies the Gospel and maximizes their resources to the glory of God. Efficiency is secondary, but important: e.g. it may be important to have an extra person in a training role whose efforts are not vital, but who is gaining knowledge some future responsibility. We just need to find the way to be most effective with the resources we’ve got.

Within the last 48 hours I became aware that the IMB issued its press release covering the recent BoT meeting in Denver. There was a BP release a week or so ago regarding “cutting back” on missionary appointments, but it was a superficial story about the BoT meeting — not an item-by-item account of what actions the BoT took.

I’ve been wondering myself what the BoT might do to “cut back”. Now that we have the IMB press release, it has come to light:
(1) That at least one BoT meeting has been canceled. Since the BoT consists of more than 80+ people who are flown in from all over the USA and put up in a hotel for a couple of days this is not a trivial saving; [I've known this for several weeks - in advance of the IMB press release]
(2) That they have cut back on 11 regional leaders.
This is an exact quote from the IMB news release,
“Trustees recognized 11 regional leaders who have guided the work of the organization across the globe in recent years. Most will move into new roles under a reorganization taking effect in July . . . . ”
I think these “regional leaders” are some type of “middle management” that they are cutting out — just like is happening in businesses all over the USA.
—-
I wish the IMB would be more transparent about what they are doing. Instead of saying “a reorganization taking effect in July … ” they should tell us what this re-org is. After all we are paying the bill.
The thing that bugs me about the BoT of the IMB is that even though their meetings are public, and even though they do issue minutes of their meetings, and even though they issue news releases as to what happened; there is still a wide gulf between what they say and transparency that we should expect and demand given that we are footing the bill for all of this.

That is why I am going to the plenary session (i.e. public session) of the next BoT meeting, in Jacksonville in September, on my own dime, and report on what is going on.

As far as I know, the only news that comes out of the BoT meetings is the official press release from the IMB management. I don’t know of any BoT member or member of IMB management engaging the issues via any podcast, blog, interview or any other means of communication.

I’ve scoured the IMB website to no avail. Hopefully, I’ve just missed something.

For the sake of the CP and the continued viability of the convention, the IMB must be running on all cylinders when it comes to being proactive in reaching out to its funding source in terms of its management practices.

If we don’t have a robust IMB/NAMB and/or CP then why do we even need the SBC? Looking at the landscape across the SBC — especially with younger pastors — I don’t think I’m the only guy asking these questions.

Roger K. Simpson – Oklahoma City OK

State conventions and their staff can have a very valuable ministry. Not long ago I met a pastor who was a struggling young planter 19 years ago when I served in Indiana. He recently thanked me for taking time to encourage him (not ironically, part of the encouragement was taking him to a conference at FBC Woodstock). The training, the vision casting, and other assistance can be valuable, and can justify the convention car, the travel budget (I have never seen anything like that since!), etc.

That is the good. But it is in my opinion easier in a state convention than any other place in the SBC to become complacent, to enjoy the perks and lose sight of the ministry. Most do not, but some certainly do. I have been to so many meetings at posh hotels with lots of perks, and the temptation to think I earned all that is real. And sometimes over time without careful evaluation we see the development of the habit of people justifying their position more than serving the convention. We in ministry, whether in the local church or in some denominational role, should never assume our position is one we are entitled to hold, and that is a hard pull to resist when we are blessed as the SBC has been. I remember a CEO in the book Good to Great stating that every day he tried to demonstrate he would be hired that day as he was the first day. I try to live that way, though I am not always successful.

It may take the current economic crisis to make us do what the gospel focus we claim to have should do–make tough decision as to how we prioritize how we allocate resources. I hope we are more like a focused family making decisions from shared core values than the federal government with almost no accountability and so many special interests as we move forward. But move forward we will.

I hope we can do it together.

I looked over my previous rant and I noticed that it has two problems. (1) It is twice as long as is needed to make my point is, and (2) It only tangentially makes my point.

Let me try this again:

This is a comparison of the OLD SBC vs. the NEW SBC as viewed by a person that has been attending a “typical” SBC church regularly for the last 3 to 5 years but who doesn’t know anything else about the SBC from prior experience.

OLD SBC — circa 1960

1. Person knows that church is part of the Southern Baptist Convention
2. Graded SS classes where Bible is taught — using SBC literature
3. Bible centered evangelistic preaching with invitation after every service
4. Various youth programs such as GAs, RAs, Sunbeams
5. Awareness of missions and the Foriegn Mission Board
6. May or may not be aware of Home Mission Board

NEW SBC — circa 2009

1. Person knows that chruch is part of the Southern Baptist Convention — however the name the sign out in front may not say “member of SBC”
2. Graded “connection group” classes where Bible is taught — not necesarily using Lifeway literature
3. Bible centered evangelistic preaching with invitation after every service
4. Various youth programs such as Awana
5. Awareness of missions and the International Mission Board
6. Never heard of the term North American Mission Board

—-
Other than “distinctly Southern” culture such as GA’s dressing up like queens, etc. these two lists are the same, right?

The difference is that the stuff in the first list, while looking the “same” as the second list, was all part of an SBC branded program. With that old SBC program anyone who was even half paying attention would have had to have been aware of Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, and the CP. Kids learned about these people in GA, Sunbeams, RAs, etc.

My main argument is that in addition to the poor economy the reason that CP giving is down and support for IMB and other agencies is taking a hit is due to a long term secular trend that is kicking in slowly over time. That trend is that “the average guy in the pew who has only been there for less than a decade” has no clue regarding how all the stuff that the agencies do are paid for. The church doesn’t have any vehicle where Lottie and Annie are being discussed any more. Our kids programs don’t mention them. Our SS literature doesn’t even make tangential references to these offerings any more. About the only mention of Lottie each year is the one 30 second clip [produced by the IMB] on the big screen on the first Sunday in December each year.

Any mention of the CP is going to result in blank stares. If you haven’t been hanging around SBC life for a decade or more you would have never heard of it.

We tossed out Southern cultural baggage which is OK. The trouble is we also tossed out 80% of the awareness of our funding model at the same time and didn’t replace it with anything else.

Now a vignette from my own life. I was a member of an SBC church in California as a kid. I was there from the age of 17 up age 21. Then my wife, family and I moved to Northern California and we were members of a CBA chruch for 35 years. Now that we are in Oklahoma we have come “back home to the SBC”. We have been at an SBC church here in Oklahoma for about 5 years. I know more about the SBC funding apparatus from the stuff I learned 40 years ago than whatever I found out in Church here in Oklahoma in the last five years. Whatever method the SBC uses to pay for all this stuff is essentially a military secret.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

If the ideas set forth are good, the various entities involved, from the churches to the EC, would do well to consider them in their regular operations, as an expression of concepts that a goodly number of SBC’ers have endorsed.

If the SBC, meeting together, votes on it and appoints a committee to study it, and make it the focal point of some sought-for action, that’s quite another thing. THAT, I’m not for.

I fully endorse the Bible, too, but that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of pressing flowers in it, swatting flies with it, or using it for kindling in your fireplace.