Word Just In: Say Nightynight to NAMB by Peter Lumpkins

   Since June of this year, some have raised the question since NAMB is a failed/failing institution of the Southern Baptist Convention, it's time for us to prepare its bed, say nightynight, and tuck it snugly and securely away.

Even farther back, the shot fired from Wake Forest heard round the world awakened all sleeping Baptists with this single bullet: 

"Do we need all the boards and agencies we currently have or could there be some healthy and wise mergers?" (//link).

We now have the official word...

NAMB...

Down ya go! 

And, who utters these definitive conclusions? 

Not the GCRTF.  Well, at least not this time anyway.

The mystery supporter for saying nightynight to NAMB is...

Dr. Duke McCall, former President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (//link).

The North American Mission Board, McCall informs us, is a "wasteful funding mechanism" that serves as "a pressure device" to keep apparently wayward state conventions in line with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Thus, "the North American Mission Board continues to appeal to SBC leaders despite its clear obsolescence,'" McCall concludes. 

I'm sure Dr. McCall's statement has about the same chance of being winsome to our 40 (- +) state executives as did the Wake Forest words about "bloated and inefficient bureaucracies with red tape a mile long" (//link).

Dale Carnegie would surely scratch his head.      

According to Bob Allen, senior writer for Associated Baptist Press,** McCall indicated further, "a few changes in the Cooperative Program -- the SBC's unified giving mechanism -- would improve efficiency and greatly strengthen the Baptist state conventions."  Indeed a major overhaul of the unified funding plan, McCall insists, is long overdue.

Again, Dr. McCall: "Like the nation's budget, it has been the victim of political changes until it reflects political power more than fiscal rationality or denominational strategy."

That just about tidies up the bed, I'd say. 

What do you think?

Consider this:  when the collective wisdom of conservatives and moderates are thoroughly combined, a guy would have to suffer a fatal dose of dumb to deny it definitude.

With that, I am...

Peter

**Read the full story by Bob Allen (//link)

Comments

[GW]

For what it is worth, because of NAMB I am able to be in the military as a missionary for southern baptists to our fighting men and women. Because of NAMB I have an endorsing agency that allows me to be open with sharing my faith and teaching the Bible. NAMB has my back in this and we have seen over 300 professions of faith and baptized over 100 in 5 months of ministry this year.
So say what you want but even for its inadequacies NAMB still helps Southern Baptist missionaries reach our nation for Christ.
Could it be better, sure anything or anyone could. But what would the options be for southern baptist chaplains if namb is no longer there?

[peter lumpkins]

GW,

Thanks for logging on. Also we appreciate your service via NAMB and am glad you listed the spiritual benefit you and others have gleaned from its role.

I do hope you caught my facetious plot in this post. I am not one of those who've a priori made up my mind NAMB should disappear or, at minimum, be rolled into IMB.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Les Puryear]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't McCall help form the CBF? If so, then why does his opinion matter to us? Just askin...

[Chris Gilliam]

how winsome!

[Scott A Gordon]

Les,

Perhaps you should ask this same question to the fine folks at Between the Times. They have picked up the abpnews online article without comment, positively or negatively, from any of their contributors to this point (8:28am Cent. Time).

I agree that McCall's assertions should carry little weight within our convention.

Sola Gratia.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

I think it's a good question. I also agree with Scott's recommendation (//link).

With that, I am...
Peter

[John]

Do you see this as a political power struggle for control of an SBC agency and/or funds, or an real desire to streamline the system to make it more efficient and therefore use more dollars for actual missions rather than support an inefficient bureaucracy?

[volfan007]

And, the plot thickens, and things continue to get very interesting, and very concerning.

David

[Debbie Kaufman]

I was wondering the same thing as Les, and In Between doesn't have a misleading headline such as "Word Just In Say Nightynight to...."

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Since you've come back, you've been cordial. Thank you.

However, know this: I will never allow again this blog to become a dumping ground for either drive-by shooters such as your above comment fully represents or a dirty bucket to trap the drippings of people who cannot control their emotions. It ain't happening, sister.

With that said, I'll let your one accusatory implication stand that I'm a deceiver. Please don't log on again unless you are serious about engaging the issues.

Have a great evening.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

John,

Thanks. I assume you're directing the question toward me. If not, you can clarify to whom you're querying.

Simply put, I see some of the issues emanating confusing signals, so much so, in fact, it extremely difficult to discern what's going on. We'll know more when an official report is released.

Dr. Gerald Harris made an important point in the Christian Index (editor at Georgia state paper) that if the GCRTF would follow through on the early indications coming from them that while the meetings would not be open to the public, journalists would be invited in order to keep Southern Baptists abreast of the movements of the TF, we'd be farther along in our real discussions.

I fully agree. As it is, Dr. Akin is out chasing down "myths". Why not nip them in the proverbial bud by having journalists report credible information? Who knows? It only adds to the confusion.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

Maybe we ought to make a motion that all board meetings be televised like the Congress does on C-Span. Then they can have all the privacy they want. :)

Seriously though, it gives one pause to think that a secular entity like Congress provides open access to all of its proceedings and supposedly godly entities like SBC boards and task forces are held behind closed doors. Is that ironic or what?

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Thanks. I have been an advocate and still am for privacy--at least for now--for meetings held by SBC committees. However, there definitively is a distinction between, say the proceedings of a group responsible for personnel issues, and a group like the TF which holds no potential for harming the private interests of individuals.

With you, Les, I fully support openness in the meetings the TF has. Openness does not mean I am invited to observe. It means responsible journalists from our state papers and Baptist Press are included in these proceedings with no 'gag rule' imposed, of course.

As Dr. Harris rightly observed, there'd hardly be a need to chase down and destroy "myths" if the TF would follow through with Dr. Hunt's original intention to be inclusive in the meetings the TF has.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Good morning, sister Debbie.

As for your early morning point, I have to deliver unpleasantries: it is completely hollow. Not only did I tag the post as "humor" I also made explicit reference to the "facetious plot" in my very first comment. And, the post's content itself was not vacuous of a slice of irony. In light of this, to even suggest my title deceives is just plain nonsense.

I politely informed you not to log on again unless you wanted to engage the issue.

However, apparently from your standpoint, the issue inevitably reduces here to me: I am the issue...virtually each and every time.

Hence, I took liberty to unpublish your comment since your issue--i.e., me personally--had really nothing to do with the post's thrust.

Auf Wiedersehen, Debbie. Ein großer Tag.
With that, I am...
Peter