The North American Mission Board trustees also voted Oct. 7 to reduce NAMB’s budget by $4 million and transfer the money to IMB. While the SBC Executive Committee must approve the proposal before funds are transferred to IMB, NAMB trustee chairman Chuck Herring called the unanimous decision by NAMB trustees a “Kingdom vote.”
Let me get this straight. Our North American Mission Board trustees voted to reduce their budget so that they can ” send funds to assist International Mission Board (IMB) missionaries”?
That’s what I read.
One SBC entity saying to another, “Here’s $4 million. Hope this helps. We will do without it. God bless you.”
One SBC entity just giving money to another? Yep. This is so extraordinary that the SBC Executive Committee will be asked to approve it.
It wasn’t long ago that NAMB was a dysfunctional mess, poorly led, poorly supervised.
I’m not sure exactly what the money will mean or exactly how it will be used but count my SBC optimism to have been raised by a couple of orders of magnitude.
I commend Kevin Ezell and the NAMB trustees for this action. I’m impressed.
Maybe this will start something, move something, change something.
I thought it was pretty cool myself 🙂
Sounds like a “Calvinist conspiracy” to me? 😉 (sorry for the emoticon Dave!)
Amazing what happens when men and women who love Jesus work together to solve problems. This is a very cool story. Thanks for sharing William! Very encouraging.
Do not doubt the power of someone turning this into a Calvinist Conspiracy thing 😉
Well personally I never cared much for Calvinist, but perhaps I will rethink my position after this….just kidding, just kidding…couldn’t resist.
Seriously this is fantastic. I think I was the one who said in a comment a week or so ago that I would not live to see this happening. So much for my ability to size up a situation.
It’s a new day at NAMB and it sounds like that day is now at the IMB!
Now if we could shut down a seminary or two,we might be on our way.
Could this be a prelude to the merging of the IMB and the NAMB? I ask because Dr. Floyd brought up the idea of possibly merging the two boards.
The idea certainly makes sense when you consider that here in the USA there are a number of various ethnic groups. For example, we have a large population of people in the USA with Vietnamese ethnicity. Maybe it makes since to combine resources to put all Vietnamese missionaries in the a common working group.
Roger OKC
I don’t see that it makes sense, Roger, and I am assuming that NAMB gave the money because trustees thought IMB needed it and they could afford to do it. Maybe I’m hopelessly naive but I not seeing denominational politics or Calvinism anywhere in this.
Agreed William T. Let’s see this for what it is..Kingdom people trying to work together to solve a critical situation. If anything NAMB is setting an example that others should follow.
It makes more sense than many old-timers are either unwilling or unable to see. Having lived in Northern California for fifteen years it was an eye-opener of how much of the world or the international was there. My son’s school easily had fifteen nations represented by the children and parents. If we could reach them, then they could reach their home countries and immigrant communities. Many if not most of the church plants in CA are ethnically-focused churches(Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Russian, Ukranian, Vietnamese,etc.)
Now I am back in the small town South and people tend to have the view that the world is out there and thus we must have the IMB and NAMB because they have different areas on which to focus. Yet the international diversity of our cities, including those in the South, and even our towns is amazing. When we realize that, we might decide to not divide our efforts but unite them.
It felt weird and yes a bit embarrassing to explain to my church in CA how the “North American Mission Board” worked in Canada but not Mexico. We had Mexican members but none from Canada. So how is Mexico not a part of North America?
There are many great resources for info on reaching the foreigners/strangers/sojourners in our midst but hopefully soon and very soon we will be on fire to make them our brothers and sisters in Christ whether they live in Oakland, CA or Ulaanbaatar , Mongolia.
One source I recommend is: http://blog.keelancook.com/
Keelan is at SEBTS.
Louis
I am an old timer. The idea that I am unwilling or unable to see is categorically false. It could be that I have been around the block a few times. It could be that I am able to see the fallacy of this move. It could be that down through the years I have developed some wisdom. The entities have a different task i.e, my earlier comment.
Your experience in California is totally different than my 22 years in Montana. We have a Native American population. Other than that we have few resident ethnics. What we have are mostly students, harvest folks etc. What you need in California is totally different than what I need in Montana. We need to get out of this one-size fits all mentality. There are several options to meet both needs other than merger.
My main thesis, however, I confess is my belief that NAMB should be a bank while states and assocs. develop strategy, do training etc. I would think that IMB is different and must offer other resources.
I hope my use of old-timer was not offensive. I did not mean for it to be.
I think we are in overall agreement that continued changes need to occur in multiple areas of SBC life and I do agree that what is needed in CA may not square with MT’s needs.
I see some unneeded duplicity in having NAMB, the State Conventions, Local Associations and local churches all engaged in planting churches when I think one of those(Local Assn.) might be phased out and another(State Conv.) should not keep so much CP money.
However I am glad that NAMB has the funds to share and did so. I know many churches give their Local Assn. 1-3% of their undesignated offering and I wonder if that money could be better spent elsewhere like the IMB.
Louis
The redundancy of the three entities (NAMB, state, and assoc) is in my opinion wasteful. While we might use different terminology, I surmise we have some agreement on that.
Your last paragraph is of course a discussion that we must have. My experience is that those closest to the culture and the location are best able to develop strategy. Hence I would opt for the assoc. over either with the state being second. As far as a better use of money I would not single out the assoc. but I would expand the whole concept and say far too much money is kept in the states and not nearly enough sent to the foreign field. Hence my belief that NAMB should be a bank and let New York, California, Montana etc. develop strategy and training. Not going to happen…just sayin!
Louis, I don’t think we know each other, I think this is the first time we have dialogued on “Voices”. I served 20 years in Montana under appointment of HMB/NAMB as a new work strat. and church strengthener. I retired NAMB 2 years ago and am now Dean of the Chapel and instructor in systematic theology at Yellowstone Christian College. Would you mind sharing with me a little about yourself, so we can get aquainted. Blessings my brother.
I am an older college student at present. I moved my family to SC from our home in Northern California this summer. I am back at USC, commuting three days a week, and working on finally finishing my B.A. We have three kids 11, 3, and 1. My wife is from Mongolia. We met in Berkeley, CA. She was an RN in CA at Children’s Hospital in Oakland. We thought it would be easy to get licensed in SC and get a job. It has not been. She has now applied for a license in NC. After I graduate we plan to move to NC to attend SEBTS.
I was an active layman at a church in NorCal in need of revitalization. It was there that I was called to vocational ministry.
Louis
Thank you for the brief bio. It is good to get to know you. Prayers and blessings my brother.
Sorry for my poor grammar — change “since” to “sense”
Great news and very encouraging!
Way to go NAMB! Well done.
Does it not make sense to reallocate resources towards reaching those who have never heard of Jesus than to keep pouring money into a nation that is near complete saturation of the gospel? I sit on a church planting committee and believe in the vision to plant new churches but this move was something that needed to be done. This is a no brainer. Thanking God for NAMB’s leadership.
How can this not make sense? Should we keep pouring millions of dollars into a nation that has reached near saturation of the gospel? Do we stack churches on top of each other here? Why not reallocate resources to support/send missionaries to the far reaches of the world that has never heard, that has no access to the gospel? I’m presently on a church planting committee and my friends this only makes sense. A no brainer indeed.
What is NAMB’s total budget?
around $120m
Thanks William,….seems like a fairly reasonable gesture. But, it does raise several questions when this level of variance occurs in a budgeting process. I wonder if this type of contingency was explored in previous budget discussions. If so, that would show amazing leadership and vision.
http://www.namb.net/annualreport/
NAMB’s operational budget for 2015 is around $120 million, with roughly half ($60 million) earmarked for church planting.
Regarding the merger of the two boards there is in my mind a great difference in the two. (1) IMB is concerned with foreign countries more than with immigrants. The cultural differences are enormous in the foreign culture whereas those of other nationalities are in a culture familiar to the worker. (2) IMB expertise could easily be given to NAMB in the area of immigrants without the two becoming one. We have visiting professors why not visiting whoever doing whatever they do with IMB. (3) It is my understanding that there are vacant offices in each building. Could not both boards be housed in Georgia thereby generating some savings. (4) My main concern is the task of each entity. I can see how IMB needs to work with their missionaries who are going for the first time to a strange culture and all that is involved in that. That is not true with NAMB. Our planters are in a familiar country. Hence my main thesis….IMO NAMB has little to offer a church planter. The stet or assoc. can do that task much better. They are more familiar with the area etc. etc. NAMB should be a bank with a banker in charge. Let states/assocs develop strategy, training etc. IMB is different because of the nature of deployment.
Neat article from Baptist Press concerning SBTC’s efforts use IMB missionaries coming home through VRI for work in Houston.
http://bpnews.net/45714/sbtcs-1m-would-deploy-imb-missionaries-to-houston
I am wondering how this might affect this year’s Annie Armstrong Offering. Our church raised about $70 per capita for North American Missions, after doing a little more for IMB.
My church doesn’t like it when we raise money for one thing and spend it on something else–which we have had to do in the past. Even though we voted as a body to do so, it did not set well with many.
This at least raises the question: do we need two completely separate organization and two different offerings to accomplish one mission? Our church, in light of the volatile economic situation is reflecting upon different approaches to mission support and special offerings.
We are scaling back on every non-essential organizational expenses to keep above water. I know it seems like heresy, but there does seem to be an elephant in the room in regard to recent NAMB and IMB strategies.
I don’t know enough about the inner workings of these organizations but I am pretty confident we only have “one” mission. Should we discuss having only “one” mission agency? Perhaps this is already being discussed.