One of our SBC Voices buddies, the SBC Plodder, has posted some excellently “wild and crazy” ideas about the Cooperative Program today, called “Three Outrageous Suggestions for the Cooperative Program.” Who knows, that might find its way on here later in the week. One of the suggestions he made is to reduce the number of Trustees for each of our entities. I think it is good, but I am going to suggest something that goes the other way a little.
The state conventions in New Work states like Iowa, the Dakotas, Minnesota-Wisconsin and others are largely dependent on NAMB funding. Obviously, NAMB funding is a drying stream right now and budget cuts are being made. I understand that. Kevin Ezell and the Board of Trustees at NAMB can’t print money and they are having to make cuts. If people don’t give through the CP, their funding is cut, ours is likely to be cut as well. That’s a reality.
But here’s my complaint. The state conventions I mentioned above are all below the line to qualify for representation on boards and agencies. Iowa has no trustees on the IMB. The Dakotas get no representation at NAMB. None of the seminaries have trustees from Minnesota-Wisconsin. I’m not sure how many other state conventions are in that same boat.
But we get no representation on the Boards that are discussing and deciding our future. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem fair.
The budget cuts that are coming may be both necessary and fair. But it does not seem fair that the Boards that make these decisions have no representation from the Upper Midwest conventions.
Dave, how would such a change be implemented? Who (individually or collectively) have to OK it?
Anth–
You’re talking, fundamentally, a constitution/by-law change. The apportionment is spelled out in Article VI of the SBC Constitution, unless there’s an overriding requirement of the entity’s Constitution.
So, Dave will have to make the motion in Phoenix. It will be referred, automatically, to the Executive Committee. They will consider it and return with a recommendation. If that recommendation is “pass it” then it goes to the SBC in (are we in New Orleans?) 2012. If it gets 2/3rds there, it comes up again in (Baltimore?) 2013. If it passes by 2/3rds there, then the next year’s nominations would be affected by it.
So, action and agreement now means a shift in representation effective with those elected in 2014.
Anyone? Have I got the procedure right?
And that 2/3rds can be harder to get than you’d expect. We’ve had some good things recommended here in Arkansas get 65.4% because there were folks that organized to make sure it didn’t get 2/3rds. They knew they weren’t in the majority but loaded up church buses to get an extra 100 people there for 1 business session.
And as a result, we still don’t recognize Alien Immersion. ET will just have to go to Florida or something.
I guess, Anthony, that it would require a bylaws change (or at least a policy change).
I think you could possibly increase/address under-representation with just a policy shift, but you’d end up growing the boards. I think the only way to make this bureaucracy-neutral would be to reduce other state’s large numbers at the same time. That would take the By-law change.
The Chair isn’t in favor of this Motion and will refer it to some committee. Does the black Pastor from Texas concur ?
So Dave,
Pouring your CP dollars into the Cumberland River?
Or, are you suggesting in States where church planting should be a priority that NAMB may need to consider channeling energy in that direction and let the megas in the South carry the load there?
Todd, I really stayed away from specific suggestions, other than pointing out the general principle that we in the frozen north feel sometimes that decisions are made FOR us and we have no voice in them.
Again, I am not issuing any kind of ultimatum or demands. Nor am I saying that NAMB is being unfair.
We’d just like to have a voice in the decision-making process.
On the other hand, your suggestion is one I have made before. It would seem like we should spend our mission money where there is not massive SBC presence.
That may come from a selfish place – wanting more money for us!
The architects of the CR, and their prodigy of the GCR, practice a pragmatic ethic. Economically it is something akin to ROI. We have forgotten the years many of our missionary heroes spent before they saw any fruit. Today in the slice and dice of get it done or get out, it is far better to see if we cannot plow money back into Southern (SBC) bastions of influence and feel good about it. Maybe this is the best reason to retain “Southern” in SBC.
My sarcasm about the Cumberland would be analogous to the Boston Tea Party. But, I did not want to initiate anything akin to a “Tea Party Movement,” as I am not sure we will not witness Animal Farm in the process.
I would not suggest an ultimatum. But, it does seem that the new rigor for NAMB seems more suited to send money your direction, and our other small States, rather than create loopholes or channels to do more of the same whereby NAMB receives gifts from churches only to plow the money back into said churches for some qualifying project.
I am certain these themes have been visited before on some now defunct sites and in some obscure places.
NAMB has trustees from many of the smaller, non-South state conventions: PA-S.Jersey, Utah-Idaho, etc. There are parameters for this. Iowa must be below the threshold. I don’t know that this is not a good policy, else we would have even more trustees.
William,
While there are some of the “non-south state conventions” with some representation on NAMB, the standards are the following from the SBC Constitution and By-laws.
“30. Representation From Qualified States and Territories:
A. When the cooperating Baptist churches in a state or defined territory have fifteen thousand (15,000) members, an initial application may be filed for representation on the Executive Committee, the Committee on Committees, and the Committee on Nominations.
B. When the cooperating Baptist churches have twenty thousand (20,000) members, an updated application may be filed for representation on the International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, and LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, unless otherwise provided in the Board’s charter.
C. When the cooperating Baptist churches have twenty-five thousand (25,000) members, an updated application may be filed for representation on GuideStone Financial Resources, the commissions, and institutions, unless otherwise provided in the commission’s or institution’s charter, and on the standing committees of the Convention, all as provided by the Bylaws of the Convention.”
So after 15000 resident members you get on EC, C on C and C on N. At 20000 members you get on the IMB, NAMB. At 25000 you get on the other agencies and institutions.
For the EC, the number goes up for every 250,000 members. (not sure about the others)
The fact is still, even though some of the conventions are small and participate in the CP, they still have NO representation on any of the boards or agencies that their CP dollars support and even though they are many times most directly affected by the decisions of especially NAMB.
In most if not all State Conventions and Associations, when a church is brought into participation in the group, they are given some type of representation in the organization and are eligable to serve on the local boards and teams. They do not have to wait until they are a large church until they can fully participate although some have a waiting period for full participation.
The total number of trustees could be cut if there was one representative from each convention on each board rather than the two that there are now.
William, you are right (as WJ has spelled out) that we fall below the parameters for representation.
I am not planning to go on some kind of crusade about this. The SBC has its parameters and we have to live by them.
Fundamentally, though, it does not feel fair to many of us that our futures are being decided by a board where our voices are completely absent.
No Boston Tea Party planned here, but we may toss a couple of boxes of Kentucky Fried across the Mason-Dixon line.
I put something similar to this over at SBC Plodder, but I’ll share it here, too:
Why not drop the “numbers” game and just seek 1 person per state/regional (like Minnesota-Wisconsin) to serve on the boards of each major entity: EC, IMB, NAMB. Somehow, we need to address the seminary board representation to involve others, but I’m not sure how. No dual service: can’t be same person on each one.
You could get really wild and crazy and have the individual conventions elect the representative instead of the Committee on Committees (or is it the Nominating Committee? Can’t remember which comes first) hand picking the people for those 3. Still use the existing nominations process for ERLC, Guidestone, Lifeway and whatever else needs a board. Probably the seminaries as well.
Then, the people representing Iowa would actually: 1.)Exist; 2.)Be known by Iowans.
You would have fewer than 50 trustees each for EC, NAMB, IMB, instead of 80+ per. Might not save a lot, but could save a little. Plus would keep the voices balanced, especially at EC and NAMB between the old-line and the “frontier.”
I still personally feel that NAMB wastes a ton of money on church plants in the south where you can’t swing your arms without hitting a SBC affiliated church. I’ve commented numerous times about how these churches invariably do more harm than good, many fold within a couple of years, and very little new growth is achieved. This money needs to be shifted to church plants in other areas of the country and the people in those areas need to be the ones on the board making the decisions about how the money will be used.
Either there needs to be a way to enact representation for these areas on certain entities like NAMB or NAMB needs to be restructured where its trustees are from areas not already heavily dominated by the SBC.
You have people living in a certain area with their own agenda making decisions about church planting and funding in areas that many will probably never make the effort to visit.
I am proud to say that Midwestern Seminary, which I attend (until May – when I graduate!), regularly host personnel from Minn-Wisc and Iowa to interact with students and encourage them to go to those “frontier” states…not sure if the same is true for other SBC entities.
I’m expecting then, that when you finish seminary, you’ll be coming up to Iowa to help us! Look forward to having you aboard the BCI train!
I just read where Iowa has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. That sure bodes well for being able to establish some solid churches.