I am encouraged by the preliminary report of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force to the Executive Committee last week. While much more needs to be done to focus our energies, resources and cooperative efforts on evangelizing a lost world, the report deals with some of the areas where we are languishing in the task of the Great Commission.
Efforts to revitalize and strengthen NAMB as a more sharply focused entity should be welcomed by all. I have already spoken to affirm the decision not to merge the two mission boards. Each has a unique role to play is serving Southern Baptists and facilitating reaching the lost at home and abroad. But finally having its own missionaries to supervise and concentrating a church planting focus on the cities and under-churched areas of our country will go a long way.
It is significant that the door is being opened to the IMB being free to work with unreached people groups in the U.S. without infringing on or having to seek NAMB’s approval. Our current ministry assignment instructs us to “assist churches by evangelizing persons, planting Baptist churches and nurturing church planting movements among all people groups outside the United States and Canada.” By removing “outside the United States and Canada,” a geographic restriction is removed that has created a debilitating dichotomy in our denominational strategy.
We are grateful for a good working relationship with NAMB and are confident this will continue with a synergy of mutual consultation in working together to evangelize the lost of North America. Many are not aware there are regular meetings of our leadership team.
NAMB has always requested assistance on the part of IMB in reaching the multitude of ethnic groups in America who have emigrated from places around the world where our missionaries are working. It is not unusual for emeritus missionaries and those on stateside assignment to be involved in reaching these population segments in the vast urban areas and throughout America, many of which are not being targeted by local churches, NAMB or state conventions.
Reaching these ethnic people groups, many of which are from areas that are closed or restricted to a Christian witness overseas, represents a potential for engaging their language and society with the gospel as it invariably flows from those reached in America to relatives in their homeland. Our work is currently organized to focus on nine ethnic affinity groupings, all of which are global in scope. The purpose is to reach all peoples anywhere and everywhere rather than just in their geographic area of cultural origin.
This recommendation should not create an expectation that the IMB will begin assigning missionary personnel to the United States. It would not make sense to pull a missionary out of South Asia where he is working to reach 10 million Baluchi, for example, to reach a community of a few thousand Baluchi in an American city.
IMB strategy seeks to establish indigenous churches that are not dependent on outside resources and personnel. Dependency based on a professional church planter or paid pastors greatly limits the work and inhibits spontaneous growth.
Most of the unreached peoples of the world have expatriate population segments in the U.S. but have been off limits to the IMB. If this recommendation is adopted by the convention, I anticipate we will organize to make a concerted effort to work with NAMB, state conventions, local associations and in response to requests of local churches, to identify unreached ethnic people groups and utilize our personnel and resources to train stateside entities to understand and witness to those with other cultural worldviews.
The other recommendation regarding funding and a one percent shift in CP funding from the Executive Committee to IMB will be addressed in subsequent posts. My next blogpost, however, is titled “Leaders in Denial.”
Thanks for posting on the GCR task force. I am looking forward to you next post. I have a question regarding the proposal to increase the IMB budget by reducing the budget of the Executive Committee.
How does 1% of the EC budget equal 1% of the IMB budget?
Good thoughts. I appreciate hearing perspective from people such as yourself who have lived and labored in the mission boards and SBC world. You helped people like me understand some implications of these changes in a helpful way.
I hope that what you said about the IMB responsibilities regarding assistance and (perhaps) training the other conventions for ethnically-focused work in North America would be true. It would be a shame if the Great Commission Resurgence kept more people here in the US than the previous arrangements have!
Mark, the 1% shift is not relative to either entity’s budget but refers to the SBC allocation of CP funding. The 50% we currently receive represents about 35% of our total budget. The 1% will represent a larger portion of the EC budget.
Josh, I have continued to say that it is not the responsibility of the IMB to do missions on behalf of Southern Baptists. The Great Commission was given to every church, every believer and every denominational entity. Our responsibility is to facilitate, equip and enable God’s people to be obedient to the Great Commission. The potential is awesome and far beyond the limited resources and personnel that the IMB will ever have.
I love this. Will this open door create the possibility of the IMB targeting Native American groups/reservations such as the Navajo in Arizona and New Mexico? They are a large people group that don’t have much gospel influence and only 2 NAMB missionaries
(and they have been re-assigned to administrative duties rather than on the field reaching people.)
Dr. Rankin,
First, let me thank you for the interaction you gave me on your previous post. That spoke volumes to me personally and also reflects on your willingness to converse through a complicated issue.
Let me begin by stating that I agree with this statement above. The movement between peoples living in a diaspora like situation is a breeding ground for international mission. This is the statement with which we must all agree!
Still,could you elucidate one of your statements you made above. I think it would be helpful for me to understand what you meant by the following:
Could you explain how it has been debilitating and how it is a dichotomy? I’m not challenging you on this, but I wonder how many people will assume the truth of this statement (1) because you said it and (2) it appears to make sense on the surface. There is a history behind the split and good practical reasons, but I would love to know more; it may help me to better understand GCR component three (and may help others support it more).
Again, Thank you!
Respectfully,
Wesley H.
Corey, I don’t think the proposals will result in picking and choosing which people groups will be targeted by which entity. Hopefully the dichotomy between the mission boards will blur and we will all work together cooperatively to offer what skills and resources each has to lay on the table to reach all peoples cooperatively. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get to the point of ceasing to be concerned about who is in control and who gets credit, whether IMB or NAMB, State Conventions or NAMB, for the sake of God being glorified by ALL peoples being reached with the gospel.
Wesley, ministry assignments to the entities by the SBC clearly restrict the IMB to working “outside the United States and Canada.” We are trying to reach all peoples throughout the world and have recently organized our strategy into nine global affinity groups so we can reach UPGs wherever they are, until we hit the borders of the U.S. Because North America is the “turf” assigned to NAMB, we are prohibited from working among people groups in the U.S. and Canada except with permission from NAMB, and often from state conventions. This, in spite of the fact, most of the people groups we are trying to reach, including those in restricted countries, have population segments in the U.S. and usually no one is reaching them.
As a member of a SBC church but serving in Asia as a non-SBC missionary, I’m very excited about these proposals. Situations change and strategies need to be fluid enough to change with a changing world. The USA of today is not the USA of yesterday.
I previously served full-time in ministry among UPG’s in the states before officially moving to Asia and the more interaction from those with much experience is (at least on my part) and should be welcomed.
Turf or no turf, the Gospel should never be limited. Those preaching it should never be limited. IMB and other foreign missionaries have much to offer churches, conventions and so forth in the area of reaching UPG’s in the states.
I agree with the assessment that UPG’s tend to be ignored in the states. I agree because I’ve seen it first hand.
I pray the convention will adopt this proposal. It can only be beneficial to those still living without the Gospel as it will remove and “Limitation” that is no longer needed.
Dr. Rankin,
I’m really glad that you began a blog for the purposes of sharing your thoughts and opening up dialogue concerning those issues which are dearest to all of our hearts. Thank you for that! I enjoy reading your thoughts and the comments of other readers and they bring many questions to my mind. I would like to ask a couple of questions pertaining to statements and comments on this post.
First a comment: It’s amazing the way things have worked out and the timeliness of the re-structuring of IMB to an organization that is perfectly aligned to address the changes proposed by the GCR! Under our previous structure, our organization could not have easily meshed with the challenge of being a significant tool to connect with internationals in the US. Now if the GCR recommendations are approved and implemented by the SBC, IMB will be perfectly set up to step into that role! How timely is that!?!
I have a question concerning a comment that you mentioned in this blog post when you said: “I have already spoken to affirm the decision not to merge the two mission boards.”
Although you said that you didn’t believe this was the proper time to merge the two boards, in your last post you did leave the possibility open for supporting a future merger.
Why would NOW not be a better time to merge than later?
We have the IMB structured so that it could easily assume its task of international outreach and church planting in the US. The presidential position of both boards are for all intents and purposes vacant and ready to be filled by “one” president.
Apparently NAMB interests accept that NOW is the appropriate time for a merger. Even the chairman of the NAMB trustees said that he felt that a merger would be a wise move.
To “not” merge now would seem to generate more problems than merging right away. For instance, having two Southern Baptist mission boards working on the same turf would surely create a situation for duplication of personnel resources administratively and in field operations, result in confusion on the part of the board personnel and Southern Baptist churches, and very likely create a competition for recognition and access to the limited funding available.
To delay would be conducive to interests of the two boards digging in their perspective interests and becoming more turf protective and less open to a merger later. Even with the best of intentions and Godly spirits, it would be difficult for each board to not jockey for more press and support for their perspective mission interests. The goals of the two boards would be so common as to render them difficult to distinguish.
So why would a delay be beneficial in comparison to merger now?
One other question and then I’ll yield the floor! You mentioned that “This recommendation should not create an expectation that the IMB will begin assigning missionary personnel to the United States. It would not make sense to pull a missionary out of South Asia where he is working to reach 10 million Baluchi, for example, to reach a community of a few thousand Baluchi in an American city.”
Why would this not make sense?
Our recent changes in structure were to allow ms to work with their PGs regardless of geographical parameters. Also, as you mentioned, we often deploy people to reach Diaspora people in other countries instead of sending them to their more closed home nations.
Our strategic priorities are not driven by the “lostness” of the people in terms of “lost” population size. For instance, our priority to have an IMB m assigned to every people group in the world sometimes determines that a new m be deployed to an “unengaged” people group of say, 300,000, rather than sending them to an “unreached” group of 10 million or more with 1% reached because we already have a unit assigned to that larger PG.
So why not re-deploy some ms to the US to reach their PGs in the US where they may have more access to them?
Thank you for your service! God bless you!
Rick, it would take an extensive treatise to answer all your questions, particularly from the unique perspective of an IMB insider. Referring to the previous blog, that is very little in common between the work of the two mission boards. To merge at this time would be a distraction from the focused effectiveness of each one. NAMB is being given an opportunity to re-invent itself if the recommendations are adopted. They need a chance to prove themselves working in a well-churched domain of Southern Baptists to stimulate evangelism and church growth. A lot of challenges and landmines in pulling it off. The IMB needs to keep a cutting edge focus on engagement of the unreached. Why not assign m’s to their people group in the U.S. It is a matter of proportion. Our goal is not to assigned a missionary to every UPG regardless of size; it is to reach all unreached groups. That will not be done by a limited number of missionaries being deployed but mobilizing, training, equipping, facilitating Baptist partners around the world and Southern Baptists. The tasks calls for challenging, equipping, and facilitating this potential that already exists in the U.S. rather than diverting our personnel. That’s not to say our personnel won’t be involved in whatever we do in the U.S. but it will be a part of a global affinity group strategy. Back to NAMB–far more potential than merger into one giagantic, bureaucratic, multi-focused agency is a synergy of partnership and cooperation.
Related to imb’ers reaching out to those in the Affinity Groups who are living in the United States – here are two perspectives:
1 – As our folk come off the field for stateside assignment/retire (in good health)/have to resign due to field time limits/lack of funding, they could be used/useful by relating to the same people groups they worked with while on the field. I know of one young, energized, dedicated jman who wanted to stay in his assignment for another year. But due to funding, he’s now off the field. Already competent (though perhaps not fluent) in the language of his people group, he could be used to help small fellowships of his language group reach out to the lost of that people group. As the same time, he could help train (disciple) believers, and provide encouragement to the leadership in that fellowship.
2 – Using this as an example, the affinity group fellowship can be coached/equipped with missional thinking/skills which could equip them to reach others of their language group – even to the point of returning to their heart language country to reach others for Christ (pebble in a pond).
I was told recently, related to the Deaf Affinity Group, that (many of) the deaf around the world know who/where other deaf are, and they seek out their own. Workers assigned to the Deaf Affinity Group are finding these folk, relating to them, and beginning to reach them.
Seems to me this is part of what Acts 1:8 is all about.
How will NAMB decide where the needs are greatest in order to appoint their missionaries? Will they still work hand-in-hand with the local associations and state conventions or will they be by passed? I am also concerned about potentially huge differences in the support levels for missys from each entity. For instance we have a church planter (hispanic) in our association doing a wonderful job whose support is less than $2,000 monthly. How will he feel if an IMB missy comes to his area and is living much better? Just some thoughts.
Bob, good insights. IMB leadership has already discussed the idea that stateside strategies might enable us to extend tenure for some who have to return to the U.S., but we want to resist such a possibility encourage that trend.
Roy, I can’t imagine NAMB working any other way but to mobilize, equip and enable churches, associations and state conventions. They won’t get very far if they try to work unilaterally in fulfilling their assignment. One of the issues to avoid the dilemma of church planter support is to get away from dependency on professional church planters and focus on churches starting churches. One of our problems is the tendency to pay someone to do it for us.