When I was on the high school debate team we were constantly advised, “Never let the opposing team define the argument.” Once they defined the argument, you were placed into the position of having to rebut their perspective on the issue. It is essential the GCR keep us focused on the issue of the Great Commission. It is not about effectiveness in anything else—that is not the question.
If one asks whether or not our seminaries are doing a good job, obviously the answer is “yes.” If one asks whether or not our state conventions are effective and are needed, the answer would be affirmative. Do we need to do a better job of evangelism? Do we need to find a way to send more missionaries? Do we need to increase stewardship, present a better witness to society, etc.? All are valid issues and issues of shared concern. But are we asking the right questions?
The IMB has just gone through the second wave of restructuring in 12 years. In 1997 there was a total reorganization of our overseas configuration, a redefinition of leadership profiles and a resulting focus on people groups rather than countries, decentralized, empowerment of small-group teams and a commitment to personalized mobilization and partnership.
These changes were not proposed due to ineffectiveness. Indeed, we had experienced successive years of growth, unprecedented global opportunities and double-digit church growth rates. Once again, we are making changes in the midst of a momentum of global impact. Over a hundred unreached people groups are being engaged each year; new churches have gone from 4,000 to 24,000 in the last decade and annual baptisms have doubled to more than half a million.
Why change? Because the world is changing and Southern Baptists are changing. When the changes external to an organization exceed internal changes, the organization is moving toward irrelevance and ineffectiveness. A management guru observed, “An organization is in decline if it ever tries to adapt its work to fit its organizational structure.” It is a mistake to assume that continuing methods that were successful in the past will continue to be effective in the future.
How entities are organized is simply the means to fulfill its objectives. The Southern Baptist organization and structure is not an end in itself. But to refuse to change and try to make a changing world fit our structure is foolish. What is the saying defining insanity as continuing to do things the same way but expecting different results? Everyone is saying, “We need a Great Commission Resurgence.” But the voices continue, “But don’t touch the state conventions, don’t change our SBC entities, don’t think about tweaking the Cooperative Program.” It doesn’t leave much room for making changes that can bring us back to become a spiritually vital, efficiently focused, cutting edge entity for reaching a lost world if most of what we do is off limits.
The IMB is trying to reach a changing world. We can no longer presume upon the financial resources of the SBC for continuing to appoint unlimited numbers of missionaries. We have tried to stay on the cutting edge of effective mission strategy by constantly asking four questions with regard to three primary areas—overseas strategy, constituent relations and organization. The four questions are:
• What is working and needs to be continued and reinforced?
• What is working but needs to be strengthened and adjusted to be more effective?
• What is not working and needs to be changed?
• What is not working, is no longer relevant, and needs to be eliminated?
We boil this down into a brutal effort to stay focused on the task by asking:
• What NOW?
• What NEXT?
• What NOT?
The Southern Baptist Convention is structured by a legacy of historic bylaws that make it immune to change. In fact, it is designed to resist change. No visionary personalities are able to lead us to navigate the challenging environment of the 21st century. We are in bondage to leaders of the past who established how we would do things in the 19th century, in 1925, and ever since. Generations of inhibiting policies have continued to accumulate over the years. Proposals for innovation or change are readily deflected as “out-of-order” or referred to the Executive Committee or the authority of the relevant board which readily dispenses with anything that would change its status quo.
We must ask the right questions. What does the current situation and trends call for us to do right now? If we make the right decisions, where is this going to lead? We cannot wait until we get there, confronted with new obstacles and challenges; we must anticipate what will come next and be positioned to make the next innovative and strategic decision. And of course, to do what needs to be done and assure our relevancy in the future, we have to be courageous in deciding what we cease doing, no matter how effective it might have been in the past.
How would we answer these questions, not just in regard to our current programs and work, but if the defining issue was fulfillment of the Great Commission?
There is little evidence we have the courage to ever ask, “What not?” and be willing to eliminate anything we are doing. Are we willing to face the future and ask, “What next?” No, we are not even willing to ask what will make us relevant and effective now. Every indication is that the primary question driving many Southern Baptists is, “How can we hold on to the past?”
Dr. Rankin,
I celebrate the things you are writing, especially your desire to ask the tough questions and willingness to make the changes necessary to move forward as a Convention for the purpose of the Great Commission’s fulfillment.
Question: As those powers that be within the IMB have considered the above questions you’ve said it has been asking of itself has the discussion ever occured regarding the ceasing of trustee meetings as currently done? Would not figuring out another way to meet, a less expensive way, be more in line with the spirit of what you’ve written above? Would not the hundreds of thousands of dollars saved internally go far in promoting Gospel advancement to the unreached people groups of this globe?
Just asking.
Again, I really am celebrating what you’re writing…just would like to know where the cooperative dollars that the IMB is receiving are actually going (not the Lottie Moon dollars).
God bless you and please keep the conversation going.
James Hunt
Do you think the desire to hold on to the past stems from a lack of understanding of the Gospel?
In my own life, I have found that to be the case. Before I began to understand the Gospel, my identity came from preserving the traditions handed down to me.
When I sought to approach God by the traditions of my fathers, those traditions became the mediator between God and I.
The urge to preserve is not a bad thing – but, we need to evaluate what we are preserving – the traditions of our fathers or the Gospel.
A valid question, James. My reference to the questions that guide us apply to administrative leadership; we don’t have authority to impose this approach on the board, but they are making moves in the right direction out of concern for stewardship and effectiveness. They eliminated special personnel committee meetings and are doing that by video conferencing. The last meeting they voted to reduce the number of board meetings from six to four and have only two outside of Richmond which will save bundles of money for staff and board travel.
I agree that it is unwise to allow others to define the argument—however, I would not consider myself to be on an opposing team from you. Characterizing those of us who question some of the proposals made in the GCRTF Interim Report as the “opposing team” rather than brothers and sisters in Christ is not helpful.
In your zeal to squelch discussion and honest questions you are attempting to paint “the opposing team” as refusing to change, stuck in the past, foolish, and without vision. While I can speak for no one but myself, this is a very inaccurate portrayal. In our current context, the only Kingdom building organizational structure that I see as affirmed in Scripture is the local church. Christ walks in the midst of His local churches and He has chosen to further His kingdom through His local churches. Insofar as denominational entities facilitate cooperation between local churches to accomplish Christ’s work through them, they are extremely beneficial. But when they instead attempt to become the primary focus and means of that work, they usurp the role of the local church. Usurping the role of the local church is unbiblical and destructive—no matter how much it might make sense according to the latest secular business models.
I see many of the proposals in the report as usurping the role of the local church in accomplishing the Great Commission. Whether intentional or not, as written, the report coveys the attitude that cooperation between local churches (the New Testament model) is no longer effective. Rather than figure out ways to encourage and facilitate cooperation at the local level, the proposed solution will further remove local pastors and local churches from the responsibility of planting churches and assessing, equipping and sending missionaries. Both financially and practically, the proposals made in the report will inhibit rather than promote cooperation. While cooperation may not be seen as necessary for the handful of mega-churches in our convention, it is essential for the vast majority of churches.
As the discussion continues, I would ask that you refrain from using the rhetorical tactics you were taught on your high school debate team. Brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with proposals made on an interim report are not the opposing team and are not necessarily stuck in the past.
Jim, though you may disagree with some of my perspectives and the way I present my arguments, I welcome that and don’t really disagree with what you are saying. Opening this kind of communication is for the sake of objective dialogue. I choose to express convictions from a rhetorical, perhaps extreme position, because I think the greatest need is to force us to face the issues and ask the hard questions. I don’t mean to reflect negatively, but my frustration with status quo and reluctance to acknowledge reality and resistance to change obviously comes across.
You are exactly right in regard to the local church and the role of any and every denominational entity to facilitate, equip and empower the synergy of local churches serving the kingdom at a grassroots level. I think we already see networks of cooperating churches with specific affinity beginning to relate rather than through the association or state convention. I believe, probably more strongly than you, that the effective work of the IMB and NAMB must come through mobilizing churches for strategic involvement in the task.
While one of the purposes of my blog is to support the GCR, and I agree the preliminary recommendations do not go far enough, we have to be realistic about how much change can be assimilated at this point. However, I believe this can be incentive for continuing future change in the right direction.
Mr. Rankin,
We recently had a retired couple join our church. They spent 30+ years in full-time mission service with another missions organization. The only hindrance they had in joining our SBC church was the fact that we support the cooperative program. Their experience with IMB missionaries left such a distasteful impression that they do not want any of their giving to go to support SBC mission emphasis. I was surprised to say the least at the critique. They spoke of the highly frustrated IMBers. Their experience showed that IMBers were handcuffed by the organization, restructuring, and limits put on them. They said that the children of the IMBers that they knew would never go on mission with an SBC entity. If they were to be missionaries it would be with another sending organization.
I tried to defend the SBC (as I served as a NAMB missionary in Canada for 4yrs) by saying that maybe they had contact with a handful of disgruntled missionaries, but they assured me that in 30+ years of mission service on two different continents that this was the norm. They did join our church, however, they said that they would be designating their funds to specific ministries as to keep them from going to the CP.
All of this happened yesterday. Thought I should pass it along…
:: Donnie
Dr. Rankin,
Thank you for addressing my specific question. I will be praying for you. Keep up the good work.
James
Great thought provoking questions. I wonder if the Great Commission Resurgence would have even been born if our denomination was not in decline. I guess what I am wondering is this- if we were holding our own in growth, in baptisms and membership, would this issue have even been raised? I’ve been pastoring in the Northwest for a very long time- since 1981- and have watched from the sidelines as reorganization and initiatives have rolled out of the heartland of the SBC. Mostly, I’ve watched from the sidelines because the churches I serve have been small and attending the annual SBC is just not financially feasible. But I wonder if we are missing the point. I think God’s purposes are broader and greater than the SBC- it is about kingdom growth.
Keep asking the questions!
Donnie, this isn’t really the time or place to address those concerns. And using Dr. Rankin’s blog to attract attention to your criticisms is pretty immature. A private email would have been much more appropriate. I wouldn’t blame him for removing the post as is has nothing to do with what we’re discussing here.
I think if more in our convention and churches would ask the kind of questions we’re talking about here, we would see a lot more effectiveness than we currently see.
Thank you Dr. Rankin. As one curently serving I am grateful for your willingness to help stoke the fire of concern for the lost. The only handcuffs I feel are the .0013 dollars I have in the budget for each of the 15 million in my people group. My prayer is that we can free some of our resources and liberate our people from the snare of stuff in order to have a greater affect on those without Christ.
Donnie, I appreciate your sharing your experience with the former missionaries joining your church. I am confident they have a basis for their perceptions. We are a very large, global organization. Try to imagine any group of 5,000 people and the diversity in personalities and attitudes they represent. But the attitudes of those they have been exposed to should not be used to characterize the IMB and all of our personnel. Large numbers of missionary kids are being appointed and returning with the IMB. Absolutely no agency cares for their personnel and provides for them like Southern Baptists. The reality is that few people like changes, so there is obvious push back to times of restructuring to assure stewardship of resources and future effectiveness. A factor here is the level of accountability which Southern Baptists require of us that is lacking with most other agencies and independent missions.
I stand by my comments in the previous blog, this is about money, and the IMB wants it all as the only “viable” Great Commission entity in the Southern Baptist Convention. But if the IMB is really honest, they are as nepotistic as any bureaucracy. Let’s talk about the right questions. How many IMB missionaries last past their first tour? How many of those are no longer “called” to full-time missions in the field and are absorbed into the IMB bureaucracy? How much many is spent on prospects to the field that are ultimately never “called” by the IMB? How much does each of those 24,000 churches cost, and what in your definition constitutes a church? Let’s talk overall attenders/converts/new leaders instead of churches for example. How much money is spent on health care for IMB bureaucrats, who are not held to the same health standards as missionaries in the field. Finally, how much money is being spent on pensions for IMB missionaries? Of those receiving pensions, how many years on average do they have in the field—not as bureaucrats?
The truth is, restructuring aside, the IMB is as guilty of holding onto the past as any bureaucracy. It is the nature of bureaucracies to be slow in changing, and they never shrink—they always want more. So I don’t fault you Dr. Rankin, as a bureaucrat, for wanting more money for your institution. But as a Christian you should not have resorted to the kind of tactics displayed in your comments about Dr. Chapman.
I really think the right questions are being asked by Dr Rankin. Keep up the challenges Dr Rankin. The GCR will only succeed if we get our eyes on the nature of the task…to penetrate the nations (here at home) and across the world.
Right on Dr. Rankin !!!!! – I was deeply impressed with you when you came to Belmont and spoke a few years ago. You came across to me as “the real deal”. We have been blessed to have your leadership in the IMB for so many years. Thanks for standing up and speaking what is right even though I know you will get some backlash from your writings. Keep “speaking the truth in love” – I am listening and I hope all in SBC leadership are listening to your words of wisdom and your concern for the lost. God bless!
Jeff Hawkins
Pastor – Belmont Baptist – Calhoun, GA
Tom, all of your questions do have actual answers–honest ones. Send your comment and any other questions to me at president@imb.org and I will see that you get answers.
Dr. Rankin,
I want to thank you for your candor and willingness to combat decades-old infrastructures in an attempt to focus the IMB and SBC towards the Great Commission. I was once your employee in the Journeyman Program (1999-2001). I’m currently a youth pastor, trying to instill a passion for God in the next generation.
I am greatly concerned about the overall direction of our denomination. I’m still young (32), and I see the best and brightest, the most passionate ministers of my age, the ones who will be the church leaders in 2020, leaving the SBC in droves. I bleed Baptist, but I’m disheartened by a sense that our denomination has lost its way. Instead of pioneering, we’re maintaining. We’ve gone from leading to managing. The best and brightest Christian leaders 30 years from now will most likely not be Baptist.
Although I have the passion to see Southern Baptists refocus on their true calling as believers (Great Commission), my voice is very small. Because of your position, your voice is very big. Know that when you speak, you have a lot of small voices right behind you, saying the same thing.
So, please keep asking the tough, awkward questions. We need to hear them. Keep upsetting the status quo. May God use this to wake us from our slumber.
Dr. Rankin,
With all due respect, no one who has expressed concerns about the GCR Task Force Report is saying “don’t change anything.” The question is whether the changes proposed by the TAsk Force actually address the problem, or do they make matters worse.
At least with the proposed elimination of NAMB cooperative agreements, it can only make matters worse. Far from being our problem, cooperative agreements allow for collaboration and allignment between the three streams of denominational life – SBC, state convention, and local association. Instead of denominational entities competing with one another, squandering kingdom resources, we work together around mutually agreed upon goals – with complete accountability (in case Dr. Mohler is reading). The number of missionaries is increased. NAMB has the benefit of hearing from those closest to the field, while the field benefits from the leadership at NAMB. All of this would be lost without the agreements.
As one who lives and works under such an agreement, I would be the first to say that they can use some adjustment. But eliminating them and shifting NAMB to direct support of a national church planting strategy would be a mistake. Why? Because a single national strategy cannot appropriately address the diverse needs of the North American mission field – even if IMB takes responsibility for reaching people groups.
Everything I have read from IMB says that outside control is a detriment to church planting movements. As I understand it, IMB strategy coordinators do what they can to foster such movements among people groups, but they do not control them. Apparently your team recognizes that field based strategies are most effective.
And yet, the GCR Task Force recommends a command and control model for NAMB. This, coupled with the loss of missionaries in the new work areas, will seriously hamper any great commission resurgance.
Change is needed, but not just any change. And that’s what this is. The known losses are simply greater than any hoped for gains.
Jim Turnbo
NAMB Missionary, New Mexico
Mountain and Western Baptist Associations – 95% lost
P.S. Having said my peace, I thank you for your faithful leadership of IMB over the years. May God bless you and keep you!
Jim Turnbo:
“Because a single national strategy cannot appropriately address the diverse needs of the North American mission field – even if IMB takes responsibility for reaching people groups.”–
Lest we forget, we have over 43,000 SBC churches. We first need an awakening among our churches to live on mission and proclaim the Gospel. The last thing we need is more resources. We have what we need to reach our country– they sit in our pews. We don’t need more tools or resources. We need to equip, release, and mobilize those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.
The national strategy is a must to reach those areas where there are not enough churches to reach their own communities. We are quickly losing our urban centers. Much of the NW is totally unchurched.
It is time for a reality check! Is what we are doing truly reaching our country with the Gospel? Look at the facts.
Jim Tumbo, you continue to raise some valid questions and perspectives. Perhaps it would help for all of us to realize these discussions are not about the GCRTF recommendations. I spoke to my opinions and support in the first couple of posts but clearly indicated we need to go beyond that. Structure and allocation of CP is not the solution, but we don’t excuse the need to make some changes in structure and process because the ultimate solution is spiritual or methodological. We have to do what we can to initiate a climate for greater cooperation and changes needed at a grassroots level.
I will be speaking to many of these ideas but first feel the need to highlight some of the issues inhibited needed change and rationale for restoring appropriate priorities in what we do cooperatively. Once the vision and focus is on the Great Commission, I believe it will compel a radical increase in giving to CP, but the trend is evident if we hold to the status quo to protect the parallelism of everything being of equal value.
It would be a big mistake to think that NAMB will control all that is done in North America and will implement a costly, ineffective legacy approach to church planting. Some state conventions are so involved in mobilization of churches and partnership with the IMB around the world, it is almost as if they are a franchise of the IMB. That doesn’t entail our placing personnel in the states and controlling what they do. I would hope NAMB would empower and work through the states and associations as never before to mobilize and train local churches to adopt unchurched areas of the country and implement an indigenous, reproducing approach. That would not entail subsidizing state staff. What pioneer state would not welcome NAMB offering them 30-50 well-trained, effective church planters to coordinate church partners from mainline states to saturate their state with new church starts without financial obligation on the part of the pioneer state convention? More ideas to come about methodology later.
Hey, Doc:
One of yours here (Engagement Team, SSAPAG, CSC).
Before I became a missionary, I was a businessman for over eight years, a pastor for 18 years (three different State Conventions – all pioneer), and an associational missionary for over two years. God has allowed me to experience a broad base of SBC life. I chaired two State Executive Boards, vice-chaired one of our SBC agencies (LifeWay), and aided in the restructuring of one State convention and three Associations.
I was the guy who brought the motion back in 1998 (Salt Lake) to change the name of the SBC to something more “global.” Yeah, that one didn’t go far.
I only say this because I’ve observed our denomination through the years and I applaud the changes being discussed. I just pray we finally move beyond talk to action. Your voice cannot hurt, if it is applied judiciously. The ranks are praying for you.
When I was Vice-Chair for LifeWay I got to do Jimmy’s annual review (yeah, just LITTLE intimidating!). I remember telling him I only had one piece of advice. Please keep talking, even into retirement. God had given him a voice … a hearing … and he could say things with integrity and bearing that others could not. He could even speak for those who felt they had no voice. Perhaps this prompted him a little toward his work with young leaders in the SBC.
We need change, Doc. The nations (and our nation) are perishing without Christ.
To all:
This discussion is good, but misses the emphasis the introduction to “the report” made and that was a call for repentence and revival. If we think that changing strategy and structure at national level is going to turn around our local church’s motivation for evangelism and missions I think we are being foolish. More time right now needs to be spent in prayer and less time in strategy. I am not a great historian, but when revival came in the past it seemed like the Holy Spirit new how to lead his people. Maybe we need to heed again the words of Jesus…”wait until you have been filled with power.” (My paraphrase)
M. Keith Williams
Regional Associational Missionary
Northeastern & Santa Fe Baptist Associations
New Mexico
We have served with the IMB on two continents and in three countries over 20 years. As we continue to live out our call today among 10+ million lost who have “never” had more than 1/10 of 1% of the population as evangelical Christians(in a modern, developed, western country)I am very much in prayer to “He who is able” for change such as those proposed by the commission and then some.
We are surrounded by several larger countries with a similar history and dire need for Gospel witness as well. And while I share Dean’s concern for the reduced financial resources being made available due to reduced giving, the main resource I am crying out over are those God is calling out from among our SBC churches but who cannot come here and elsewhere around the world and fulfill that calling today due to the lack of funding.
By the way, a continuing strong percentage of those whom I know who are being called out are IMB MKs. Even more interesting are those I serve with or others I know who are also MKs but who grew up w/ parents serving through some other agency but who felt personally led to serve through the IMB. This is in direct contradiction of the misguided and distorted view of “one” non-IMB couple’s experience as shared above by brother Spivey. I do know that when current IMB leadership made the difficult decision in 1997 to reorganize and refocus our personnel toward more cutting edge, new church planting strategies, it did indeed cause a lot of stress and dissatisfaction among many who had been serving in more traditional roles such as pastors of already-existing churches and other such roles. IMB leadership took the hit and worked through that tough transition(a transition that had been attempted and failed due to strong resistance ten years prior). Many w/other organizations heard the criticisms some personnel voiced after those changes.
I celebrate those changes today and experience every day our field force’s increased effectiveness directly due to them. Our most recent reorganization is already showing positive results. Our new personnel who have arrived in the last few years are some of the best-prepared and most energized I have ever seen as they relate so well to current strategies and felt called to come work through job descriptions/personnel requests prayerfully written and submitted based on our current vision and strategies. Our current veteran and newer missionaries alike are seeking and discovering more effective methods toward first-ever breakthroughs among these historically-resistant peoples.
I pray to always be open to spiritual growth and maturation which I believe involves, in and of itself, change. Blessings in Christ as we all seek God’s will, both daily and in such longer-term matters, as we seek to bring Him all honor, glory and praise.
Don, thanks for jumping in to share your perspective. I am grateful for your affirmation of what we are doing and the vision you have expressed.
@Brett, I am not criticizing the IMB, only repeating the first hand experiences of other missionaries. These experiences deal greatly with the restructuring, etc. Therefore your assumption is off base.
@Dr. Rankin, Thanks for your response. As we seek to ask the right questions, I thought that it would be helpful to hear the perspective (limited for sure) of these other missionaries.