Thanks for contributing your $.02.

My great misgiving with regard to the numbered schema that you articulated above lies with #2. Most of our state conventions, in my opinion, are financially shackled by their commitments to in-state institutions. The relocation of domestic church planting to the state conventions (I’m thinking specifically here with regard to the tremendous need in pioneer areas) will provide an enormous justification for diverting yet more money to the state level (”what was going to NAMB before, we now need here in order to pursue NAMB’s former job description”), and yet I’m dubious about how much of that money will actually make it to places like New England and the West Coast.

I hold out the hope for North American missions as a separate entity not because of what it has been, but because of what I envision that it could be. We need something along the lines of the Manhattan Project by which Southern Baptists determine to plant Southern Baptist churches (and a whole bunch of them) in the Northeast and on the West Coast in this century.

The guys at Hudson Baptist Association will tell you that you are statistically as likely to meet a born-again believer in Beijing as you are in Albany.

Thanks for your comment. I will begin by saying that I will address my thoughts on Article IX in my last post, which Lord willing will be published Friday. I share a reservation of my own in that post which I think is similar (though not necessarily identical) to your first misgiving.

As to your second misgiving, since I do not address the merger question in that final post I will share some brief thoughts here.

First, I do concur with you that there will be some who strongly argue for a merger. I say this because I heard that idea discussed informally for two or three years before the GCR proper was on the radar or Tim Patterson’s comments to that effect. (You’ve probably heard some of this chatter at some point as well.) If a taskforce is approved then I suspect the merger idea will at least be discussed, even if it does not prevail.

As to my own thoughts, I am conflicted. My late father-in-law worked for NAMB in the adult volunteer mobilization department and for a couple of years was the number 2 guy with disaster relief. I am certainly not anti-NAMB, though I think they have some serious issues (though as you know this has been the case with every manifestation of our home board for almost the entirety of its existence, even the Tichenor “golden era”).

I do not think a merger is necessarily the best answer, but neither do I oppose the idea. I go back and forth on the whole thing. I do know this: because of duplication NAMB only does a couple of things that could not be done by either IMB, state conventions, and LifeWay. *If* a merger happened (and again, I’m not sure it’s best–just open), then I could envision a scenario similar to the following:

1. Evangelism strategies/programs are either localized through state conventions or coordinated through LifeWay

2. NA church-planting is handled entirely (at the extra-church level, of course) by state conventions and/or associations (though I can see where NA church-planting among unreached people groups living in NA would also be coordinated with the single mission board, for resource and networking reasons)

3. Disaster relief is handled entirely by state conventions and/or associations

4. General outreach intiatives (think crossover, partnerships with evangelists, etc.) is coordinated through the single mission board

5. Collegiate ministry is handled entirely by state conventions or, in places where state conventions don’t have the resources, the single mission board

One assignment currently tasked to NAMB that admittedly seems like an odd fit anywhere else (besides local churches, in a perfect world) is the endorsement of chaplains. Not sure how a merger would handle this one. I suppose that the single mission board makes the most sense.

Anyway, I think a merger could definitely happen and could *possibly* be the way forward. But a merger could also not happen and maybe should not happen. I remain very much open to persuasion either way.

My two cents, for what it’s worth.

NAF

Again, I still have reservations and misgivings about the GCR document. Really, just two. The first is that reorganization is tangential to the revival that we need in order to experience a resurgence in our pursuit of the Great Commission. The second is that I believe that this movement will result in an attempt to consolidate NAMB and IMB. The chairman of NAMB’s board, just at the moment when I was prepared to consider that I might be wrong about that one, went on Baptist Press and set my concerns in that regard into concrete.

I know that you are doing this in segments, and I’m content to await your own timing, but I would like to hear your specific sentiments regarding the potential of an IMB-NAMB merger. Do you concur with me that this specific proposal will be advanced forcefully from some people during the GCR process? Do you support such a merger? If so, why?