In Between The Times most recent post they argue for why the GCRTF Report is good for the future of the SBC. Below they address 6 different things that they hope to accomplish with NAMB through the report.
Here are some of the main features of the recommendation:
- It “frees” NAMB to direct a church planting strategy in North America. This may come as a surprise to some. Most of our Southern Baptist life we assumed that NAMB’s focus was church planting, but that is only a piece of what NAMB does, and not necessarily the primary piece, until now. NAMB told the GCRTF that the cooperative agreements have kept NAMB from doing what most Southern Baptists expect and assume that they do, which is church planting. The cooperative agreements keep millions of dollars tied up in various state agreements and keep NAMB from employing a direct church planting strategy. Phasing out the cooperative agreements will free up 50 million dollars or more for church planting in the areas in most need of a gospel witness.
- The priority of NAMB will be church planting in metropolitan cities and the underserved regions of North America. This is an important strategy. The world is moving into the cities at a rapid rate. We dare not delay in rolling up our sleeves and flooding these massive population centers with church planters. The longer we wait, the more people we condemn to an eternal hell without even the opportunity to hear the gospel and trust Jesus.
- The GCRTF calls on every Southern Baptist church, regardless of size, to be a church planting church. NAMB will assist the local church in carrying out Christ’s commission to plant churches. This strategy recognizes the primacy of the local church as the body ordained by God in carrying out his mission, and it gives churches ownership of this mission.
- 50% of all NAMB ministries are to be focused on church planting. This is significant. This has the potential to give the SBC a highly focused church planting network to take North America for Christ in the coming decades with waves and waves of church planters being unleashed with significant funding to plant churches with success in the underserved regions of North America.
- NAMB will decentralize in order to carry out a regional strategy. Boots on the ground closer to the actual work is the goal here!
- NAMB will have new strategic partnerships with state conventions, especially those conventions in the most undeserved and unreached areas in order to penetrate lostness.
I think all six of these things are good and will help with reaching the lost in North America and making the SBC stronger. The one I really like is number 5. I mean no offense to anyone, but the last thing the SBC needs is for some ‘Bible Belt Mississippi boy’ to try and lead NAMBs church planting across the states. I am not sure why it took us so long to realize that decentralizing NAMB was a good idea, but at least we have now seen the light.
We need different people to lead NAMB’s church planting according to their region of expertise. Your typical “decisionism” SBC-Bible Belt church just doesn’t take in the Midwest, North, etc… We need people who know the culture of these other regions to lead the church planting efforts.
That is my two cents on number 5… Any thoughts about the other points?
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 16 comments }
Well, let’s be optimistic about NAMB, in spite of the fact that NAMB has provided the SBC’s most spectacular failures lately. Granted, there has been nothing from NAMB to foster optimism, but we can hope.
As to decentralization, I’m not sold that this will change much of anything. NAMB establishes regional offices, staffs, and administrative structures which will breed success whereas the current system, money funneled to the various states (“decentralized,” “boots on the ground”) is failing? Maybe. I’m not convinced that NAMB needs another layer of management to replace the one (state conventions) they are seeking to eliminate.
I would vote for the report were I to be in Orlando.
William,
NAMB has been a disaster lately, agreed… Which is why changing how NAMB works should do nothing, BUT make us hopeful!
I get your point about decentralization, but in terms of church planting from a strategic stand-point the decentralization is a very good idea. For too long we have had Southern boys who are clueless about the church culture in the rest of the country trying to lead church planting for all of North America. It is absurd and NAMB needs decentralized.
Matt,
I agree 100% that NAMB must be restructured and its mission given new focus! However, like William I am not completely convinced that everything here is a good idea, but I am hopeful…
If nothing else worthy of my support came out of the GCRTF recommendations than addressing the needs at NAMB, this would be more than enough to gain my vote.
Grace Always,
I made this comment on Akin’s post:
I appreaciate the prayer and thoughtfulness that the GCRTF has put into this project. But as a pastor of a small church in a pioneer area, I fail to see how taking the money (and therefore the control) away from the state convention and local associations will be better for church planting. No one know our mission field like our area missionary (ADOM). He is a godly man who has a real heart for church planting. He is helping our small association of churches to begin 2 new church plants right now. His salary is supplimented by a NAMB/Colorado Baptists cooperative agreement (as are two current church planters in our assocation).
How is taking the money away from supporting these servants good for the Great Commission? How is putting the control with NAMB “putting boots closer to the actual work”? Isn’t that what we already have through our cooperative agreements? How much closer to the actual work can you get than our church planters, our area missionary, and our state convention who understand Colorado? I cannot imagine anyone in NAMB could do it any better. All I can imagine from this GCRTF recommendation is NAMB duplicating, or trying to replace what is already working. Seems to be a waste of time and effort and money to me.
Richard, here is my perspective. How do you know that this money is going to be taken away? Danny Akin and others have bent over backwards to say that they are NOT just cutting the state conventions loose, but that they are going to replace them with something new and that they are going to try to funnel MORE money, not less, to new work states.
There has been a regular chorus of “the sky is falling” rhetoric about the GCRTF. But most of it is based on fanciful interpretations of the words of the document. If you take the Task Force at their word, the GCR should be good for new work states like ours. (I’m an Iowan).
Good for new work areas if they are “population centers” like big cities like Denver or Des Moines. But what about most of our state that is made up rural areas and small towns? Those are NOT a priority for the GCRTF they have said as much. The losers in this money grab will be those working in rural and small town America.
I still don’t see how putting control in Atlanta (NAMB) or even a regional office (as first proposed) would be any closer to having “boots on the ground” Makes no sense to me.
Richard,
Maybe I am miss hearing you…
But you really dont see how decentralizing and putting a regional office in say, Omaha or Des Moines, rather than having one office in Atlanta is closer to having “boots on the ground?”
How will point #3 free small local churches to plant churches? I don’t get it. We already can do that in cooperation with associational, and state conventions. I fear that the new agreement will throw more weight to the wimps of the megachurches, and ripped the heart out of small churches.
As a born & bred KY boy who is planting in the city of Surprise AZ, a small 125,000 person suburb west of Phoenix, my question remains this: We say the GCRTF will enable/call on SBC churches to become church planting entities, but how do we effectually consider a document to change hearts of SBC people and leadership? We moved here, knowing no one other than the church and association/state leadership that called us here. At a recent partnership meeting, I asked about seeing if we could connect with SBC churches in the area, about the possibility of 1 or 2 families (no more than that) covenanting with us for 1 year to assist us in getting the church off the ground. The response from one pastor at the meeting? “I really don’t think that will fly. Churches don’t like to share their people.” What?!?! Their people? Of course, realizing that comment had financial undertones I responded by stating I didn’t even want those families to tithe to our church, but we just need bodies to help with projects, with community outreach, etc…as we get started. Even after letting them know they could keep them as tithers, there was still no movement to embrace the idea. So I plant, on an island alone, in the middle of the desert…somehow I don’t believe a document will change that.
Steve,
Sadly, your situation seems all to common in the SBC. Southern Baptist churches, typically, do not work well together. The town I grew up in had about 8-10 SBC churches and they all acted as if they were competition. It is truly sad.
You are right… This document wont change that… No document will. May the SBC have a true heart of repentance and cooperation. May we stop building our own Kingdoms and start building God’s Kingdom.
The document will not change it, but the attitudes that the Task Force calls us to adopt will change things. It is not voting for the document that will change things, but if we repent and return to being what we are supposed to do.
We especially need to embrace the challenges laid before us by the task force.
Churchs too close together are competeing and a new plant would do better if properly placed. I only hope that the “Planters” get to chose the area they will go. Makes no sense to take a guy who surfs , does ocean things, loves sand , sun and hot and ends up in the mountains, doesn’t ski, hunt, snowmobile or horseback and is afraid to drive in the snow. Tough for a guy to fit in when he doesn’t fit. But you can always go to them and Learn where they are.
I think for the most part planters do choose where they go, as much as we can say we choose where God leads us/opens up the door. We honestly never thought about out west, and had been looking at New Orleans, Boston and some other places. But when we saw the need for the Phoenix valley area (3.5 million people, less than 8% in evangelical churches on Sunday mornings) we not only felt the need to go, but fell in love with the area.
I can honestly state that having to work hard for the kingdom to reach the lost doesn’t bother me in the least…I can also honestly state that some of the reluctance to work together for the kingdom bothers me greatly. I was used to that in the South, if you consider Kentucky in the South…I was hoping it would be a little different out here. I will say that I’ve been pleasantly surprised at friends we have made from other denominational circles who are eager to jump in and help us with events…they don’t plan on leaving their church to join ours, but they are very eager and excited about doing kingdom work, with whomever! I wish we could bottle some of that and spread it into SBC waters…
In principle I like the idea of decentralization. One question I would have centers around differences between regions that have a high density of SBC churches verses regions that have a very low density of SBC churches. I know that church planting in my area is rather silly. Just in my small town we have 4 large SBC churches within just a 2 mile radius and more than I could count without resorting to a map if that radius is extended out to 3 miles. There are small SBC churches on nearly every back road throughout our region and multiple large ones in every town.
But I know that there are regions in the US who don’t have many churches at all much less SBC churches. So church planters and financial resources from the churches in my region would need to go to another region. What structural provision is there for cross-regional church planting?
I normally just lurk here, but here’s my $.02.
No one really knows what this will do. For some regions, things can only get better, meaning, they receive very little, but have a huge need. This is for areas like New England, some area of the pacific Northwest, Mountain west, Canada, and others. These area have averages of less than 2-3% Evangelical Christian. Quebec is at .38% evangelical in the French speaking majority. They need more support than they are getting. For other area this is not going to be good. Georgia had over 300 NAMB missionaries. That is strange.
The problem is with area like mine. I am in South Florida. The most liberal estimates put our evangelical population at 10-12%. Realistically, my area is down at 3-6%. However, my state is at 30-40% evangelical in some area, and double-digit Southern Baptist. What does that mean for us? We have a great Convention in terms of church planting, and a center down here, but what in real numbers will all this mean?
So, let me reiterate, I don’t think anyone knows what this will do, but as has already been mentioned, NAMB has had some problems, so a shake-up may not be a bad thing. I personally believe that the shakeup needs to extend down to the ground floor and our basic assumptions and definitions of missionaries.
On a side note, the SBC churches in our area haven’t given us people to help plant, but three other denominations have. Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists together for the Kingdom.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SBCvoices.com, Brent Hobbs. Brent Hobbs said: Matt over at #SBC Voices has a great post on the NAMB aspects of the #GCR final report http://bit.ly/aiP19J [...]
Comments on this entry are closed.