The GCR Task force has been prayerfully at work. As we have asked it to do, the task force has presented a preliminary report of recommendations it will bring to the Southern Baptist Convention when it gathers in Orlando a few short months from now. In this post, I will focus my intention on component #2 concerning the refocus and restructuring of the North American Mission Board. While I am in general agreement with the intent of the proposal, I have some questions and concerns about the net effect of voting for it.
I share these thoughts to inform our discussion as together we prepare to make a decision that will have lasting impact on the way Southern Baptists do missions. Of course, I am just one man, with a limited frame of reference and my own set of biases. My opinions and questions have been shaped by several factors: First, I come as one who has, from the beginning, supported the Great Commission Resurgence and actively campaigned and then voted for the task force. Second, I am a strong advocate for church planting. Third, I pastor in a “new work” state in a semi-urban area and working to encourage church planting both in my church and association. Fourth, I serve on the mission committee of our state’s executive board. Finally, I am a former NAMB appointed church planter and was funded through the cooperative agreements as they are today.
What I like about the GCR Task Force Proposal
When I first heard that the GCR Task force was addressing the current funding system, I was enthusiastic. For quite some time, I have been frustrated with the inability of the current system to plant churches where they are needed most. As I see it, there are two significant problems with the system as it currently exists:
First, not enough money is allocated for church planting missionaries. Our current funding partnerships seem to well support administrative and strategy roles while leaving little money for actual planters. At times, this has resulted in the funding of more personnel whose job it is to strategize for church planting than persons doing the church planting itself. Further, church planter salaries are in most cases inadequate. While missionaries in administrative and strategist roles are adequately compensated, church planters are asked to give a full-time effort at wage levels that are unreasonably low and often insufficient to meet basic needs. Quality, experienced persons are thus discouraged from church planting because there is not enough funding to pay planters a livable wage.
Second, too few funds are available for church planting in new work areas. Part of the problem is that current cooperative agreements require a level of matching funds in order to receive NAMB assistance. In state conventions that are few in number and have limited resources, church planting is hindered by a lack of funds because there is not enough money to provide the required matching funds through the current cooperative agreement structure. Admittedly, the ratio for matching funds is adjusted for smaller conventions. Still, for conventions with few churches and limited resources, even that smaller amount of matching funds may be difficult to procure. Thus, a metropolitan area in a new work state may have a need and strategy for thirty church plants, yet have the matching funds available for only three or four.
My first inclination has been to be in favor of the change in emphasis outlined in component #2 including the phasing out of current partnership agreements. I am encouraged that a new NAMB would emphasize church planting as a priority for funding. I am also encouraged that the proposal intends to release more funding for those areas which represent the largest mission fields in North America: the North, Canada, and Urban/Metropolitan population centers. I speculate that the task force proposal would result in more money and, more importantly, more evangelism and new church starts in these areas. Further, allowing NAMB to directly fund church planting in areas where matching funds are limited may well result in a great increase in church planting for those areas where churches are needed most. Consequently, based on the limited information provided thus far, my general inclination is to be in favor of GCR task force component #2. Several unanswered questions and concerns remain, however, and will need to be addressed before I will be comfortable casting my ballot in favor of the proposal when we gather in Orlando.
Questions and Concerns about Component #2
1. One of the primary rationales given for component #2 was a regional inequity of funding. The data which formed the basis for the proposal has now shown to have been inadvertently misreported by NAMB, thus the inequity in funding is not as great as was initially reported. While I don’t see this as a deal breaker, the task force would do well to explain why their rationale is still valid in light of the corrected data.
2. Given all the information I have, the proposal gives the appearance of a general distrust of state conventions and local associations. The end of partnership agreements affects not only where the money goes, but, significantly, who controls the money. I can certainly support a plan to adjust current partnership agreements with states so that church planting is emphasized and more money goes to new work areas and urban population centers. I am not yet convinced that eliminating those partnership agreements is the best plan. If we vote to eliminate partnership agreements, and thus give direct control to NAMB, I believe we send the message that local and state leaders cannot be trusted with mission funds. I am not inclined to send that message.
Additionally, the language in the report about lack of accountability for partnership funds is good rhetoric but, in my opinion, does not reflect what I have observed. On the contrary, accountability for NAMB funds is extremely high and the procedures for such accountability are often tedious. In my opinion, if there is a question about how NAMB monies are being spent, the fault is with funding priority guidelines not with any lack on the part of state leaders to account for funds.
Finally, current leadership in my state and association have proven themselves trustworthy and are moving in the right direction with both an increase in the number of church plants and a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of those plants. Ending partnership agreements with the states seems unnecessarily punitive. Thus, from my admittedly limited perspective, pulling the plug on state leadership in favor of national leadership would be unfair and would send the wrong message.
3. The report speaks of both working with churches to do ministry and plant churches and at the same time appointing church planting missionaries directly without the partnership of states and associations. The plan speaks of decentralization, yet at the same time calls for centralization of the mission force. For me, the wording of the proposal presents more questions than it answers. What will be the role of churches in shaping strategy and prioritizing for church planting? Will local churches and associations have input in determining strategy for their own areas? While I have expressed concern above about the inequity of funding between planters and strategists, I still see a need and role for strategists. Since the majority of strategists now serving in new work areas are funded through partnership agreements, what will happen to strategists currently on the field? Will local missionaries be picked up and directly supported by NAMB, or will experienced and effective strategists be replaced by new national missionaries? Will local field workers be by-passed altogether in favor six regional strategists? The task of saturating unreached areas with the gospel through new churches requires both planters and strategists; both local church involvement and denominational support.
One significant issue for me is lack of detail concerning what would replace the current model. If and when those details come, I will be in a better position to decide how to vote. For now, scrapping one system without clearly defining one that would replace it is problematic for me. I do favor a refocusing of priority and funding. I do not, however, favor centralizing the decision making to a national agency at the expense of local influence and involvement. Admittedly, I don’t know that such would be the result of adopting the proposal. On the other hand, without any details, I don’t know that it won’t either.
4. Finally, will the plan backfire and result in states keeping larger percentages of the CP pie to offset the loss in revenue from the current partnership agreements? State conventions have their own ministry and church planting priorities. If partnership agreements are ended and these priorities go unaddressed in the new system, state conventions may very well adjust their CP allotments to fund those priorities. The overall rationale for component #2 is more money for missions where it is needed most. If as a result of component #2, however, state conventions choose to forward less CP money to the Convention or even slow down the rate of progress toward reaching the 50/50 target, the net result would be less money for missions not more. Such a change would mean less money for not only North American missions but international missions as well. If the net result is a decrease in missions dollars, the primary goal for the GCR task force would be lost.
In summary, I appreciate the intent of component #2 and am generally inclined to support it. I support a refocusing of NAMB priorities toward church planting and new work areas. I agree that the current funding structure must change in order focus on these mission priorities. However, I have questions and concerns that prevent me from being ready to cast a “yes” vote. I am not yet convinced that scrapping the current partnership agreements is the best plan. Further, I need more details to assure that decision-making will not be centralized to the national agency to the exclusion of local churches and associations, that current effective leaders will not be unfairly penalized, and that the net result will not be less resources for missions.
This post represents where I stand now and is a reflection of my current thoughts based on available information. I am more than willing to be persuaded by reasonable arguments, new information, or ideas I may have overlooked. Ultimately, I want what is best for our Convention and will help us best fulfill the Great Commission. I look forward to the dialogue in the coming months as together we pursue His Kingdom mission.
Blessings,
Todd Benkert
Good thoughts; it’s nice to hear from someone who’s actually in the mix regarding the different levels of SBC life who can provide some perspective. As someone serving in a state-level position, do you see the loss of the partnership agreements as potentially removing a key anchor for involving new churches in the state convention life? I know in my state, the state-run use of NAMB church planting money has allowed the state convention to exercise its own policies towards new plants (that are stricter than other states) as well as keep new church planters attached to the state convention… Read more »
Josh,
My main concern is not the loss of partnership agreements, but a lack of knowledge concerning what will replace them.
— Todd
I can understand that. if they continue down the same lines, hopefully that clarity would be part of a complete report in May.
I was just wondering as someone who interacts at the association and state levels more than I whether the issues I asked about had ever surfaced?
Josh,
I have not talked with anyone who had the kinds of concerns you mentioned (not to say there aren’t any out there). The concerns I’ve heard repeated have to do with the fact that nearly every strategist position, whether state or association level, is funded through the cooperative agreements. If the cooperative agreements are scrapped, we would lose nearly all of those positions. What/who would replace them and Why should we suppose that a national strategy can be fulfilled without a local one?
Thanks, Todd.
I hope there are more like you who are trying to think about the proposals in more than “I lose my funding or my niche ministry” terms.
I hope that perhaps there might be more detail on that front in the upcoming final report. I do think that having so many “strategists” at every level of convention life is probably inherently inefficient and resource-consuming. Perhaps a well-structured national strategy could eliminate some of that duplication.
Todd, Great job explaining some of the many reasons why, at this point, I plan to join you in voting “no” to component number two. Perhaps these issues can be resolved by June, but I doubt it. The rather simple solutions proposed by the task force are inadequate to deal with the complicated nature of the problems. That statement is not intended to be an indictment of the fine people serving on the task force. I believe their hearts are absolutely in the right place. I just don’t think this approach is the correct solution. Your concerns are valid and… Read more »
Rick,
To be clear, I am not committed to voting no. I really have not yet decided how I will vote because the final proposals have not yet been made. I do, however, have concerns and would like either for those concerns to be addressed in the final report or to be convinced that my concerns are unwarranted. I am having discussions with many about these issues and hope that the final proposals will be something I can wholeheartedly support.
Blessings,
Todd
Like you, I’m in a new work state, and I share your concerns almost to the letter. I’ve been firmly in favor of GCR from the beginning, but I would like to hear answers to the same questions you are asking. I believe that the transition could be done well and result in progress, but we need to be assured of that with some more details. Our local association’s DOM has called a meeting next week to discuss the possible implications of the report on our area. I suspect he will be against it since his salary is paid through… Read more »
Dan,
We are having the same kinds of conversations here as well. I am cautious, however, that we collectively judge the proposals based on the goals the task force was asked to address and not based on our individual desires to preserve our own ministries. Right now there is a fear of the unknown and that is part of my own concerns. Ultimately, however, I would hope that self-preservation will not be the only reason people vote “no”.
— Todd
Todd, thanks for your comments and thoughts. I too have many questions and concerns about the proposals. I am not against them all necessarily, I just don’t understand the logic behind some of them. I posted my concerns on Alan Cross’s site a while back (in his article about Bart Barber’s response). Maybe I need to put them up on my underused blog! Anyway, I think you are right in much of your critique; esp. point #4. When the state partnerships end, esp. in the states with much more established and intricate internal structures, there is going to be a… Read more »
I’ve wondered the same thing about CP promotion. But what does the EC do right now in this area? The only thing I can think of is that there are occasional stories posted on BP News about current CP giving levels. I’m sure they do some other promotional things, but I couldn’t tell you what they are. In fact, I’d say the majority of the CP push that we receive at our church already comes from the state. Maybe this won’t be much of a change at all, other than giving the state execs more to complain about.
In response to the query about ExComm’s promotion of CP; I just recently received my “cardboard envelope” stuffed with CP promotion material. I receive these every year and have done so for many years now. This envelope has a DVD, a “resource” order card, a nifty fold-out “tract” titled “we>me” and a “missionary moments prayer guide, 2010.” I believe (but am not totally sure) that these are produced by the ExComm. Also, they put the date every year on the official SB calendar for “CP Promotion Sunday.” (please read mild sarcasm here 🙂 As far as I know, and I… Read more »
I actually think that States can do a better job of CP promotion and thus increase overall revenues and offsetting the cost of promotion.
As for component #2, I’m concerned that some states may choose to cut funds forwarded to the Convention rather than cut jobs of state level employees and associational DOMs. Personally, if the GCR proposals pass, I would fight any attempt in my own state to keep more CP dollars here (though I hope I would not need to do so).
The above comment responding to you, Terry. I just put it in the wrong place 🙂
Todd, thanks for the post and some clarifying thoughts on this component. I am torn as I see the possible results of this component as you do. I am afraid that this would just shift state funding and ultimately not accomplish the original goal. I have had conversations this week with some who are very worried state ministries will be cut and thus CP funds would stay in state. I, like you, want to see a clear explanation of what the GCRTF has in mind. I am also very concerned that what we are doing is not working and we… Read more »
for evangelism, we need states and associations to spend more money coming up with new and more complex evangelism acronyms. We’ve had “C.R.O.S.S.” and “F.A.I.T.H.” Coming in 2012- J.E.H.O.S.A.P.H.A.T. You will be “Jumping” to pass it on!
I agree that churches starting churches is the ideal. But few churches are capable of doing so without partnership. That’s the reason we have associations and conventions. My question for those churches that are not involved or “have no idea” what’s going on in the various levels of partnership: Why are you Southern Baptists? Why not just be independent? I am a Baptist because that is where I stand doctrinally. I am SOUTHERN Baptist because of partnership. As for GPS, here is an example of the need for “buy in” at the state and association level. Those places where participation… Read more »
One more comment about national and state-level strategies. Too many denominational leaders use guilt as a motivator for involvement in their projects (e.g., If you don’t get involved in our program, you must not care about the lost). Why not rather work to convince pastors/churches on the MERITS of the strategy and how it can be applied and work in their local context? If they are resistant, why not listen to find out why?
Todd, I really like your thoughts on this. This is the most helpful analysis of the issue I’ve come across. I’m someone very supportive of the GCRTF’s recommendations but hoping for some clarification on the NABM issue as well. I’m optimistic the Task Force will address these concerns.