Comments on: Aspect 7(a): A Mission Based on Local Church Initiative and Supplemented by Entities and Associations (national convention, seminaries, IMB)

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:42:43 +0000

Ryan G,

I wholeheartedly agree with your desire for what the IMB aught to be, an your assessment of how churches often respond to the current situation. I must, however, respectfully disagree with your assessment of what that condition is.

Regardless of whatever well intentioned philosophical nuances shaped the structure of its governance, the IMB is a para-church.

In every practical way that effects its functioning, from recruitment and evaluation of candidates, prioritizing field assignments,to the rewarding/disciplining of its employees, the IMB functions no differently than any other para-church organization.

The SBC churches which support the IMB are effectively insulated from any direct influence on the organization through the same SBC trustee elections process that ties the IMB to the denomination. While the “SBC” may hold authority over the IMB, the churches certainly do not.

When a local congregation approaches the IMB they are most often faced with a well-intentioned bureaucracy that places them squarely in the “follower” role of any partnership. If one is to “partner” with the IMB one does so according to their “procedures”. If the established “cookie-cutter” pattern fits, great! If not, well the autonomous church is free to seek another “vendor”.

I agree that it should not be this way, but I believe the solution is not simply one of education. I believe churches treat the IMB as one of many para-church organizations, precisely because that is all it has become.

By: Ryan G

Ryan G — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:06:03 +0000

Regarding the name, it will be hard to change if many of our churches and people view their identity as being “Southern” more important than their identity as being the “church.”

By: Ryan G

Ryan G — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:50:24 +0000

The IMB cannot be seen by our churches as one of many parachurch organizations that send missionaries. The IMB is not a parachurch. It is the way that our churches cooperate to send missionaries. It is not a separate entity but is overseen by representatives chosen by the churches (the trustees). The IMB is the point of the spear of our churches being thrust into the heart of darkness.

Unfortunately our churches have lost that understanding. Perhaps the way trustees are chosen should be rethought, to make sure that every participating local church sees that they are connected and cooperating to support and oversee the IMB. Our missionaries need to be proactive in connecting with churches, but I don’t think the problem is primarily at that point. Somehow the churches have lost their sense of ownership over the IMB.

Support (including financial) for the IMB will only wane across our convention as more and more people are turned down for missionary appointment (due to a lack of finances given to the IMB), and instead go with alternative para-church organizations, (thus taking supporters and finances with them). The way out of this spiral is letting the churches see that they own the IMB.

By: rynoyak

rynoyak — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:32:41 +0000

the comments on the IMB-SBC local church relationship has got to be the next big thing for the development and perfecting of the IMB as sending organization of the local SBC churches’ missionaries/apostles/”sent-out ones”: the relationship of the IMB personnel to the local churches and vise versa is weak to say the least.
it seems that the churches don’t know what their responsibility is to the missionaries they support (because they are directly from their church or becuase of their cooperation through the overall SBC/IMB). the seminaries don’t teach this to the pastors to a degree that is effecting a change. and this is not highlighted anywhere to the point of effecting a change.
of course, many (if not most) of the IMB personnel do not know their mutual responsibility to their personal local church as well as to the other cooperative churches that “sent” them. this would be at least an “easier” fix, as it would be much simpler to roll out this info to them.
the way that situation currently is among the local churches, the overall SBC, and the IMB, the need and biblical model of the local church-apostle mutual responsibility is usually unknown or at least not emphasized or dealt with on either end.
for many IMB personnel, their “home/sending church” is whatever they put on the interview/appointment form.
http://rynoyak.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/sent-out-ones-local-church-vs-individual/

By: Tim Rogers

Tim Rogers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:47:56 +0000

Dr. Scroggin, and others,

As I said earlier, I will not lose blood over “Southern” in the convention, but I will lose time debating the issue. IOW, I merely present an argument that I am not in favor of losing the name “Southern”. If my being Southern Baptist keeps people from accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ, then I am not presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
Tim

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:42:28 +0000

Jimmy and Carter, you are spot on. Although I love being Southern, perhaps “Southern” is not the best adjectival modifier for our convention…

By: Carter Mundy

Carter Mundy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:38:42 +0000

I appreciate the idea of changing the name of our convention. While it may not be necessary, it can be nothing but beneficial. Unfortunately I’ve noticed a certain stigma that comes with being “Southern” Baptist. We’re either recognized as backwoods hicks, or die-hard dixie women and gents. It’s obviously not a true view, but it exists nonetheless. We’ll have to be careful not to let this issue divide us; but if our first reaction is opposition, perhaps we should ask why it matters that we change our name. If we don’t simply for tradition’s sake, I hope we’ll rethink. If it will somehow affect the way the gospel is shared, though, then by all means let’s consider it! Thanks for tackling this and other hard but very important questions, Dr. Ashford and Dr. Akin.

By: Jimmy Scroggins

Jimmy Scroggins — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:06:06 +0000

On the issue of the name: Outside of the Bible Belt (and probably urban areas inside), when you say “Southern” or “Baptist,” you are instantly associated with terms like rural, racist, backward,and undeducated. If I tell someone in South Florida I am with a Southern Baptist Church, I may as well be saying, “Hello, I’m with the backward, uneducated, racist Convention.” The name is important for historic and doctrinal reasons, but it may be time to consider if our Great Commission mandate warrants a rebranding for the future.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:45:56 +0000

“The SBC of the twenty-first century must be a missional network, just as the churches of Acts were a missional network.” I agree with and love this statement!

By: Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:03:14 +0000

Tim, IMB still assesses candidates and keeps authority on field, but churches are more hands on in discipling, etc. But most importantly, they help the team to get to know one another, have common vision, work through any relational challenges, etc., before the team goes to the field. This type of team formation has been happening for the past several years, and continutes to increase. Hopefully it will be a good thing.