The task force proposal regarding the NAMB is moving faster than the speed of light!

According to a news release from the GCR task force yesterday (“Big Changes in Store for NAMB, State Conventions Under GCR Proposal” — Christian Index 11 Mar 2010) the task force is now proposing >>

{Below is an exact quote}

>===

Under the proposal, NAMB’s role for nurturing young and smaller state conventions would be left for the various state conventions themselves, with the hope that the larger ones would fill the gap — thus freeing up the $50.6 million [in monies returned to the states by the NAMB as a result of the fund flows of the phasing out of the "cooperative agreements"] for IMB to reprioritize.

>======

I have inserted words in brackets so the sense is clear.

I’ve read the “proposal” with a fine-tooth-comb and there is no mention of cross subsidies between state conventions in there, so I don’t know what the GCR task force means by “under the proposal”. How many proposals do they have?

In any case, this whole task force report is very fluid. It is morphing before our eyes. We better all pay attention.

This latest task force report [some secret document that has evidently never been published] is not budget neutral. It is dependent upon $50.6 million in new money. The NAMB is going to redirect the $50.6 million it now sends to the states to NAMB missionaries instead. The states are being asked to backfill the $50.6 million that they no longer get from the NAMB and distribute it among themselves such that much of it will flow from old-line state conventions to the “pioneer” state conventions.

I think the task force’s report should be budget neutral — or put another way — I don’t think the successful implementation of the task force’s plans should be contingent upon the states coming up with $50.6 million in additional money.

If states are able to raise the additional $50 million and send it to pioneer area then I’m all for that idea. However, I don’t think the task force should set up a plan so that the very existence of the state conventions in pioneer states is predicated upon the old line state conventions having to pick up the tab.

What’s next! How about having the IMB commission 2,000 more missionaries and sending the bill to the state conventions! Those state conventions are a veritable gold mine.

Every time I drive down May and cross over I-44 I pass by that big six story Baptist Building. That thing sort of looks like Scrooge McDuck’s money bin — is there some type of metaphor at work here?

RK Simpson — Oklahoma City OK

Please excuse me. I guess I’m a little slow to catch on.

In the last week I’ve done more research on the “cooperative agreements” between the NAMB and the states. I didn’t know that there were two types of cooperative agreements: one type to fund “approved positions” and one type to fund “appointed positions”. I didn’t know that agreements to fund “approved positions” are instruments which provide for NAMB subsidies for the bulk of the personnel budgets of most of the state conventions in “pioneer” areas.

Now I realize why someone could broach the subject of the disintegration of the SBC in the context of discussing the Great Commission Task Force report. It is now evident to me that a likely result of the task force’s initial recommendations would in fact be the demise of some of the state conventions — at least those in pioneer areas.

I find that for a “guy in the pew” like me — it is very difficult to mine down into the depths of what the task force is actually trying to pull off. To be able to understand their report you have to have an encyclopedic understanding of the inner workings of the state conventions and SBC-wide entities and the fund flows between them.

Only is recent days have I come to realize what the task force means when they say they are “releasing the NAMB” by tearing up the cooperative agreements. This is just their euphemistic way of describing their mechanism for destroying many of the state conventions.

If some or all of the state conventions really are “bloated and bureaucratic”, and they should be abolished, then I think the task force should come out and clearly make this case. They need to acknowledge that the “marginalization and/or destruction” of the state conventions is implicit in their plan and show why this is necessary for the greater good of spreading the gospel in North America.

One problem I have is that people on all sides of this debate are speaking in “coded” language such that the real issues are hidden from view.

Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

The SBC may or may not “exist in great danger”. But, if so, I don’t see how this is a function of either adopting or not adopting any or all of the task force’s six points.

1. You say, “Yet, even if the SBC disintegrates. . . .”. Do you see any linkage between the adoption or non-adoption of any of the six task force recommendations and the disintegration of the SBC?

2. You say, “Jesus will continue to build His church unhindered by quarrels of men”. Do you believe that all or some of the task force recommendations should be withdrawn because they serve as a platform for the “quarrels of men”?

3. You say, “Unlike other formal denominations, the SBC exists more as an informal convention of local congregations who willingly work together to advance the gospel. In SBC life, no one forces anyone to do much of anything. Baptist polity demands that congregations possess ultimate authority over all that transpires beyond their walls.” Do you see something involved in: (a) debating the merits or non-merits of any of the six task force recommendations and/or (b) adopting any or all of the task force recommendations which could potentially put our polity of local church autonomy under attack?

Don’t leave us trying to read between the lines. As Paul Harvey would say, give us “the rest of the story”. Otherwise, dumb guys like me, might rubber stamp the task force recommendations blissfully unaware of the consequences.

The six points look pretty good to me. What am I missing?

Orlando is looming. How about the Messenger running some side-by-side pro and con stories for each of the six proposals?

Is the Messenger going to take an editorial position on any of the proposals?

Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

The pastors that I know just aren’t that interested in all the programs. They are interested in sending missionaries.

Thanks for your work!
LG