Comments on: Myth #8: The GCRTF plans to abolish NAMB or dissolve it into the IMB.

By: Matthew Hirt

Matthew Hirt — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:58:19 +0000

SBC’er, I’m not trying to be contentious, but you leveled some pretty heavy accusations at the largest missionary sending agency in the world which seems to be doing a pretty decent job, although they have some flaws that are trying to be corrected. I’m curious if you are able to cite some specific examples of how they have been not been “proper stewards over the contributions of their members?”

I am willing to admit that they are not perfect organizations, but what organization is perfect? There seems to be some animosity in your argument, and I’m curious where it is coming from because if there are actual situations of misuse of funds, then it should be made known.

Also, if you’re going to make a complaint, don’t remain anonymous. That doesn’t lend much credibility to your argument.

By: SBC'er

SBC'er — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:38:42 +0000

As a SBC’er, seeing all of the blogs, comments and talks about the great commission reassurance is good, but I have mixed felling. I love what is going on as far as trying to restructure, but at the same time it make me want to send my money to other places. Please do not take this wrong, I see the SBC is trying to get on track. However, thinking through stewardship over my finances and seeing the current trends, I have a difficult time seeing why one should continue to support NAMB and IMB when they are not being proper stewards over the contributions of their member.

I would enjoy seeing a series on why SBC’er should still fully support the NAMB and IMB in light of current trends. Theologically it is clear that support should be given to missionary, but in light of stewardship and the current exposure of financial misuse leaves one not wanting to keep financially supporting a structure that is not biblically utilizing finances. The current economy has clearly constrained giving, but it also seems apparent that the clear call for re-structuring may be a contribution for less support. At least it is for this writer.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:30:04 +0000

I still contend, and hope some of the myth inventors and believers can grasp, that all of the hoopla about what the GCTF is going to do is silly. The most basic thing that people need to understand is that the TF cannot do anything but make a recommendation.

I fully anticipate being in support of the TF recommendations, however, that is all that they are. The TF is NOT going to eliminate, change, create, invent, rename, reorganize or defund ANYTHING because they don’t have that power.

The key message to the convention should be: provide your input, and then wait, watch, and pray. We’ll see the recommendations that come out and be able to evaluate and act upon them or not.

Spread the word! The frantic concern is unwarranted. For good or ill, the congregations of the SBC still have the final vote.

By: Bob Cleveland

Bob Cleveland — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:08:15 +0000

For whatever it’s worth, it seems to me that the fundamental tasks of IMB and NAMB very too greatly for there to be enough common ground to combine them. IMB is tasked with seeing that folks give up their home here, move to a foreign country, learn a foreign language (mostly) and adopt a completely new lifestyle.

NAMB seems to be tasked, mostly, to help the local churches start new churches down the street. That’s enormously different from that of IMB.

If this is just a rumor, it seems the least logical, absent some secret agenda somewhere.

Just my thoughts.

By: Roger K. Simpson

Roger K. Simpson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:59:18 +0000

I agree that “action follows vision”. The current situation in SBC life is a result of decades (well, over a century I guess) of incremental adjustments and fine tunings. It is evident that we need more than just some cosmetic change around the edges. However, spelling them out in detail and getting buyin are something else.

Here is my thought question. If we were starting from scratch today to setup a Gospel Proclamation operation in the USA [and by extension with outposts all over the world] would we organize it with: (a) local churches, (b) associations, (c) state conventions, and (d) national “agencies”? If so why? If not why not?

It seems to me like we have too many layers.

By: Dave Miller

Dave Miller — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:02:06 +0000

Perhaps you know you are doing something important when you face the kind of resistance as you are.

Some of it may have wisdom. Some if it is frankly petty. My hope is that you will continue in your work without letting the pettiness of some derail you.

I look forward to seeing the final report.