The One World Missions Ministry: IMB & NAMB Officially Joined in Matrimony or Just Engaged? by Peter Lumpkins

  In Orlando, 2010, The Southern Baptist Convention voted by majority* to embrace, with minor amendments, The Great Commission Task Force Report. One item of interest to those who expressed reservations about the agenda of the GCRTF was found in paragraph five of the official recommendations to the Southern Baptist Convention: >>>

That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 15‐16, 2010, request that the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention consider a revised ministry assignment for the International Mission Board that would remove any geographical limitation on its mission to reach unreached and underserved people groups wherever they are found (emphasis added)

As one may easily see, without any boundaries whatsoever, nor any other criteria defining precisely what “unreached” and “underserved” means--only the descriptive phrase “wherever they [the “unreached and underserved people groups”] are found”--hopelessly blurs the distinction between “Foreign” and “Domestic” missions, making it all but impossible to definitively separate the commission of NAMB from IMB’s commission by Southern Baptists. This language represents exactly what many of those cited as an open door to combine NAMB and IMB, a merger which was vehemently denied by GCRTF advocates.  Yet while NAMB and IMB may not officially “tie the knot” so to speak, the ministry reassignment certainly constitutes what may be the beginning of a legitimate betrothal.  

In February, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention declined to address this particular component of the recommendations, citing discussions on changing those ministry assignments as “not yet complete because of leadership transitions at both IMB and NAMB, as well as the Executive Committee.” However, the Executive Committee evidently is now reporting that it will address the issue on June 13, 2011, beginning at 9:00 a.m. at the Valley of the Sun Ballroom D, Sheraton Hotel in Phoenix, AZ. EC members have allegedly been notified (and solicited for input) that the following Ministry Assignment change for the International Missions Board will be proposed:

Assist churches by evangelizing persons, planting Baptist churches, and nurturing church planting movements among all people groups outside the United States and Canada; and, provide specialized defined and agreed upon assistance to the North American Mission Board in assisting churches to reach unreached and underserved people groups within the United States and Canada (emphasis added)

If correct, unless Executive Committee members insist on carefully defining in the proposal what the “agreed upon assistance” to NAMB for "unreached and underserved" people groups fully entails, we will be leaving Phoenix with a missions conglomerate which very well could ultimately reduce to a single, global missions ministry, a merger which GCR advocates denied was a viable goal.

I trust Executive Committee members of the Southern Baptist Convention will relentlessly insist that the vague wording of the alleged proposal above will be carefully defined so that we may be assured no blurry, conglomerate missions strategy will ipso facto dismantle our two missions entities without explicit knowledge and approval of the Southern Baptist Convention.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[TRB]

Hmm...being something other than a native Southerner, I'd have thought you were trying to say "not a sliver of evidence", so I'll have to add the Southern version to my handy pocket translation guide...

TRB

[Chris]

Peter,

I once had a denominational player (unnamed) tell me, "Being a denominational serpent, I mean servent, is not all what it is told to be." Tanke that with your slither! It's Friday!!!

[peter lumpkins]

TRB,

Well, no, it's no typo. It's only my Tennessee hills upbringing coming out in all its illiterate glory. "Notta slither" is an idiomatic phrase perhaps derived from "not the slightest" or something similar. Pretty funny you picked up on it.

And the possible allusion to snake-like action is even funnier to me. I shall not say anything more about that :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[TRB]

Peter:

You wrote "The GCRTF offered not a slither of evidence..." Not sure if "slither" was a typo or an intentional reference to snakes or snake-like action. LOL

TRB

[CASEY]

A start would be coming to the SBC-CONSERVATIVES MTG in PHOENIX. Monday night(6-13) 5:00pm. It is an INVITATION ONLY meeting but those who are really interested can contact me for an invite. Space is limited(room size) is the only reason for 'invite only'. Good info, good speakers and hopefully the DVD, "SBC - Connecting the Dots" , will be introduced and done by then. E-mail 'request to attend' to:
"KCFROMKC@cablemo.net"
We look forward to seeing you there. As they say in sales brochures,
"Only serious Conservatives need apply".

[peter lumpkins]

Don,

Thanks. Good questions. It's debatable whether IMB personnel will necessarily be better equipped to reach internationals in the long run. Just because they've worked in indigenous countries, does not necessarily mean they will better reach internationals here, unless the internationals are "newbies." Americanized internationals pose a unique challenge about which NAMB missionaries could be adequately trained to address it seems to me. Even so, we've not had a proper debate on this question. Why not allow our missiologists to thoroughly study the question? The GCRTF offered not a slither of evidence they'd remotely studied the issue at all. Instead they made a blanket assertion and left it at that.

As for combining the two entities, I would be hesitant to a priori dismiss it. Yet at the same time, I would offer severe reservations in moving forward without extreme caution. The SBC's genius has been a non-centralized approach. We've had several agencies which each required its own set of trustees. The less trustees, the less involvement the SBC has in controlling its entities. To combine the two would eliminate an entire sector of involvement by SBC members (trustees). This is just more top-down slop fed to the pigs.

Thanks again. Very good questions.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Les Puryear]

Don,

You wrote, "Communication across the vast distances of the world is easy, simple and straightforward."

Agreed. Go to the next SBC Annual Meeting and propose that the Annual Meeting be held via the Internet in regional locations all around the USA at the same time so that more of the SBC can participate. Propose that and see what happens.

Blessings,

Les

[Don A.]

"The annual convention is a very much controlled meeting so that decisions already made in Nashville, Louisville, Alpharetta, Richmond, Ft. Worth, etc., are rubber-stamped by messengers who have no clue as to what they're voting on most of the time. I see no difference in this case either."

Les, I find this to be an interesting perspective and more than likely accurate.

What can we do about this? I think I understand your writings to be encouraging a more active voice for the smaller church, indeed, even a call for smaller churches to assert their authority and use their numbers to influence the convention. What needs to be done to bring about a "bottom-up" movement? How so we accomplish this?

"When our leaders speak of the SBC as a bottom-up organization under the control of the local churches, they insult our intelligence."

Really, How? Did the GCR votes pass by significant majorities? Are you implying that SBC messengers are too ignorant to vote informatively about what is presented to them? The churches of the Southern Baptist Convention have all the control they want.

Peter,

Do you have an issue with the IMB working with internationals living here in the United States.? It seems to me they are the best qualified to reach these people groups who have so very much in common with their people in their native lands. Have we not been duplicating our efforts with regards to people groups?

Is it possible that the actions being undertaken by NAMB and IMB have more to do with the ever shrinking world we live in. We are not in the 1800's anymore, people are more mobile than ever before, they have more knowledge than ever before. Communication across the vast distances of the world is easy, simple and straightforward.

Shouldn't we adjust our focus to address these new realities?

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

Having worked directly with EC committees, my experience is that their decision will be made prior to any formal meetings or listening sessions, just as the GCRTF proved to be.

The SBC we have today is, as you hinted, a top-down organization. When our leaders speak of the SBC as a bottom-up organization under the control of the local churches, they insult our intelligence. The annual convention is a very much controlled meeting so that decisions already made in Nashville, Louisville, Alpharetta, Richmond, Ft. Worth, etc., are rubber-stamped by messengers who have no clue as to what they're voting on most of the time. I see no difference in this case either.

Les

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Hopefully, the EC members will take this proposal apart line by line and phrase by phrase and insist on overkill clarity.

Grace, brother.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

I see your point. Thanks! I also see the validity related to Lottie and Annie. I think this point ought to be teased out more.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Thanks. As to the combining of the entities per se, I don't think the debate has taken place. In other words, were it to happen ipso facto of their changing the ministry focus of IMB, we would have just another "top-down" decision imposed on Southern Baptists. Of course, one must keep in mind, I'm presupposing the wedding with that statement.

As is, practical dynamics of an ill-defined ministry territory could cause serious rivalries for monies and funds. For example, who pays for IMB projects in the states, IMB or NAMB? In addition, our Lottie Moon offerings would no longer be exclusively for "foreign" missions. Defining people groups who are "underserved" and "unreached" would be the responsibility of whom? I suppose it would be the IMB but the focus does not say. Nor is it feasible just to state "work together."

Personally, I think if one thinks about this for a while, any number of practical considerations could seriously be raised which demands clear definition what is meant by changing a ministry focus from crisp clarity to potential chaos with “agreed upon assistance” to NAMB for "unreached and underserved" people groups.

Hope that helps some.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter,

Goal or no goal, providential conicidence or human interference, help me understand why this would be a bad thing. I understand the pitfalls of too much consolidation and centralizing. But I have also seen the lack of cooperation, or better stated, overlapping redundancies between NAMB and state conventions to the point that much of NAMB's work looked more like a redheaded stepchild coming to dinner late. Personally, I have no dog in the hunt and perhaps a poor understanding of the distinctions, so I would truly value your input.