There is lots of talk lately about NAMB and Acts 29 and the power of a church planting network. If the desire is really to move towards more of a church planting network, then I submit one basic question. Why make it a national network? It’s clear that we plant churches different with different strategies in different places. Things that work in Iowa don’t work in Arizona. You can’t plant a church in Mississippi and Oregon with the same strategies. We live in different areas of the country, and if nationizing doesn’t work for the Federal Government, why do it with Church planting?
Would it not make more sense to regionalise church planting? Why not let the State Conventions handle it? The Cooperative program is the key, you can delegate the accounting with an organization much smaller than NAMB, let the State Directors make a board and let each state run church planting? It makes more sense to me to let the guys on the ground coordinate the work on the ground.
Perhaps we need Networks for each region, Northern Midwest, Southwest, Northwest. Each region could have a director who meets, helps lead and make decisions, but they live and work and worship in their region? I am not sure NAMB has any idea what happens in Iowa. Let us have some representation, someone on the ground working to help up. Maybe it’s time to look at how we do things nationally, and think about change.
So like this?
http://www.namb.net/regional-approach/
In continuing our conversation from earlier today, I think that church planting should only be done at the local level with NO national organization.
I don’t think the map Josh links too is divided enough: i.e. the deep south separate from LA, TX, AR, & OK; NM, AZ, NV, UT separate from the western mountain states; CA, OR, WA separate; etc. I only say this because I think there is still greater diversity of cultures that need smaller focus than this map.
As for as the CP is concerned, that is simple. Whatever percentage is taken from CP and given to NAMB, divide it equally between the 50 states and perhaps 3 regions in Canada (West, East, Quebec) OR evenly between all the defined regions (probably a better idea) and then the regional groups (accountable to the state associations) decide out to dole out the funds to help plant and grow churches.
Like Dan said, the central planning of education in DC is silly because no one there knows how to raise kids and educate them in the context of my little town (unless they are from Casa Grande, AZ) like the people who live here. God Bless them, but the leaders at NAMB are equally unequipped for the specifics of trying to church plant on the Pima reservation here like the folks who live here.
Also, a local regional group, being made up of locals, will understand the local challenges better and know that there are degrees of success that cannot be charted by baptisms, bodies, and buildings. A region based church planting strategy that is organized at the church level will also be more flexible to changing conditions and be able to mobilize support (funds, people, materials) when revival on the Tohono O’odham reservation happens precisely because they are regionally based and regionally focused.
Dan,
The national involvement is likely unavoidable because some of the regional areas are simply not strong enough to do what they feel they need to do without the help (particularly financially). And the arguments are almost always going to come back to money, because money basically equals some measure of control or say in the church plant. This is why education control from DC exists to borrow from Greg’s example. They send the money, so they want some input into how it is used.
I agree with Greg’s other point also. The regions that NAMB has come up with are far more diverse than not. But that is going to be true in some measure at almost any level you draw it out. We know that there is a big difference between trying to plant a church in a rural area versus planting one in one of our larger cities. And those differences vary greatly from region to region and even state to state.
It has been pointed out that the new NAMB has regional offices and personnel – out of Alpharetta and into the hinterlands (with a by-product of saving gazillions in travel expense). I’d like to read your reaction to that, Dan.
And aren’t you suggesting somewhat of what we have had with NAMB and the state conventions, a rather byzantine money flow whereby states negotiate for a slice of their NAMB’s budget? State conventions, I think one could reasonable state, have an endless supply of desk-ready jobs if they can get NAMB to provide parital funding through the Cooperative Agreement system. That system had folks here in Georgia giving to Annie Armstrong so that VBS training could be funded in Arkansas…stuff like that.
Although NAMB has done a pretty good job the last decade of convincing me that maybe we should think of life without it, I like the changes made under Kevin Ezell where the focus is on planting churches and honest metrics for assessments. We will see where those go.
I suggested regional offices months ago, and I think its a great first step. I just worry about becoming too top down.
I think the question about NAMB, even with regional offices, is still this: can a national organization really handle the diverse cultures around North America?
Given that the accountability for all NAMB operations should still come back to that one board, there will always be a level of national organization and national strategy. It’s not definitely bad, but it does lead to some questions.
Wow, I feel deja vu . . . again.
This debate has some of the earmarks of the “homogeneous unit principle” debates back in Bible times (80’s).
There was a lot of heat generated in those days over how to do missions–not so much energy invested in actually starting new work.
The key strategy is not regional for me, but personal. I don’t think Jesus left us a very elaborate strategy. His seemed simple: “Love God. Love your neighbor.”
That transcends regions and nations, and even subdivisions of a city.
For years now there have been hundreds–thousands–of new church sites set aside for new church plants. They have gone mostly unused. Of course, I’m talking about a Christian’s living room.
“Where two or three are gathered, there I am.” That’s church. That’s a church plant. No fuss. No muss. No regional or national strategy. Just one hungry beggar telling another hungry beggar where to buy bread.
Is this “over-simplified?” A little voice inside my head says, “yes.” However, I’ve learned that that little voice is not always “nice.”
It seems to me if we are going to find a way to “regionalize,” Christians going block by block is about as “regional” as one can get. I’m just not sure NAMB is ready to put much emphasis on “house churches.”
I love my state convention, and they have been a blessing to be but I am not sure I want them planting churches. The city where I live has a population of about 22k and from my church I can walk to 4 SBC churches and one missionary baptist. I can drive to at least 3-4 churches within 10 minutes. Yet, our association tried to plant another church within driving distance. It was wasted money. I live in Arkansas.
I think NAMB should only have two offices.
A NAMB DISASTER RELIEF OFFICE LOCATED more Centrally in the US.
A NAMB CHURCH PLANTING OFFICE LOCATED Anywhere NORTH OF a straight line drawn along the STATE LINE OF IOWA/MISSOURI.
Selling that building in Atlanta would sure free up a load of cash for missions.
Seriously, what else does NAMB do that Seminaries and State Conventions and Associations cannot do as well if not better?
Jim,
You raise an interesting issue: outside of Disaster Relief, what does NAMB do that could not be better accomplished by more local partnerships.
On the other hand, is that not the same thinking of the Society Method of missions?