IMB & NAMB-The Key For Our Children

by Mark Morris on April 2, 2010

Ok – this is the last post on this subject.  As some of us looked at issues the next leaders of the SBC should consider, here are the final thoughts I will share. I’m ready to move on to other topics.

Having spent the last couple of years examining non-traditional SBC churches in our midst, my bias is that in the minds of young church leaders there is a disconnect between Cooperative Program and the very thing that led us to create the SBC – missions.  Whether or not there is a connection is not the point – the perception of such is my point.  The perception is gaining that there is no connection between being a Southern Baptist and actually supporting and doing missions.  We’ve done it to ourselves by becoming a convention that is dominated by value added services (which evidently fewer people are asking for) and by compromising the prioritization of missions as our purpose. Naturally, many folks have come to the conclusion that our re-prioritization of missions is the answer. So, what I have to say here is nothing revolutionary  -  just so obvious.

The IMB and NAMB are the key to SBC winning the ongoing partnership of the children of Southern Baptists.

The IMB and NAMB are collaborative ministries built on the volitional, financial and spiritual cooperation of autonomous, biblical, distinct churches each bearing the tenants of Southern Baptists. The origins and the glue of Southern Baptists is wrapped up in biblical churches willingly joining together to give and pray and preach and go to disciple disparate peoples toward faith in Jesus Christ. We arrived at our missional heights through among other things, this tool we call Cooperative Program giving. Thank the Lord for the gift of CP and the dedication of generations of Southern Baptists who have made the connection between their gifts and missions work around the world. Today, the system has become so many steps removed from feet on the ground that it’s hard to explain how donations at my church actually make it to SBC mission activity.  When church members learn about the tiny percentages that actually arrive on the mission field, they jump to the correct conclusion that our commitment to the SBC is not necessarily as much of a commitment to missions as they assumed.  I’ve watched people become distraught as they learn the break down of where their CP dollars go.

It goes without saying that those miniscule percentages of financial distribution to missions must be reversed, state by state if churchmen in those states are going to have their faith restored in giving through the traditional CP mechanism. We’ve got to stop calling anything and everything missions. State and local leadership need to understand that CP was not created to keep hundreds of convention staff employed.  CP was created to keep 600 missionaries from attritioning off the field; rather CP should be keeping all of  the 5,600 and more missionaries on the field. In actual fact the CP is not about the missionaries – it’s about the Great Commission and the missionaries are just one critical piece of that.  Another critical piece is churches who are engaged in lostness at home and abroad.  I guess the message to churches who vote to approve the same weak percentages year after year is, “Why do we accept the status-quo?  Change the state conventions’ budgets.” Until we are willing to make those drastic changes financially, we are going to continue to see children of Southern Baptists lose interest for lack of our own credibility.

In addition, I believe that the user-friendliness and a growing service-orientation of the IMB and NAMB is key to our children understanding the need to partner with The Southern Baptist Convention in missions.  As servants of Southern Baptist churches, both the IMB and NAMB must play a multiplicative, catalytic, and service role, which maximizes the spread of the gospel and the impact of global discipleship. If the IMB and NAMB, as instruments of the SBC are to win the hearts of our children and grandchildren, we will do so by helping churches fulfill their mission of winning the lost, planting multiplying churches and reaching the least reached around the world and at home.

Currently, the preponderance of SBC missionaries are not focused on serving North American churches in their mission to reach the world.  Missionaries are focused on doing excellent mission work – laboring night and day to start effective churches globally or here in North America – which has been our paradigm for generations.

In the future, doing excellent mission work will not be enough.

While we cannot give up doing effective mission work, missionaries have to add to their full plates, the role of joyfully serving and mentoring North American churches in missions. This is a sacrifice for missionaries who have given their lives to serving the lost not serving complacent North American churches.  My sense is that this step backwards is a necessary step to dramatically mobilize laborers personally and financially.  Particularly among younger adults, I’m convinced that without personal involvement with church planters and field missionaries, giving and going with the IMB and NAMB will not follow. In addition to missionaries mentoring, there is a great movement of missionally engaged pastors and church leaders who have much to teach and share with our missionaries about engaging the lost.  We live in a global village and back-and-forth mentoring is needed across the globe.

Not only must missionaries learn to serve local churches, the SBC must back missionaries by marketing and communication about the opportunity to give directly to mission agencies and projects as well as to the Cooperative Program. By discouraging direct giving we are sending Southern Baptist dollars to other missionaries and other mission entities. Generations of missionaries have been taught to go far and to go deep in planting roots as missionaries around the world.  In recent years some missionaries have adapted their methodologies to rapidly advance the spread of church planting movements among the least reached.  Since the advent of short-term mission trips, some missionaries have been learning that they play a new role in mobilizing and equipping and serving churches.  The result is that pastors and lay leaders come to the field like never before.  Short-term trips are not going away and the role of North American churches in direct missions around the world is here to stay.  The difference between us and Independent missionaries is that they have seen that their fund-raising is directly connected to their ability to mobilize and equip and partner with individuals and with North American churches.  For other agencies short term trips yield direct funds for mission work.  For us, short term trips motivate older Southern Baptist to give more to the Cooperative Program.   That just doesn’t work so well for younger Southern Baptists. To win the hearts of churches that are led by the children of Southern Baptists, IMB and NAMB missionaries must become as effective as our independent missionary colleagues at serving local churches in their mission and by giving them the opportunity to give directly to meet the needs they have experienced first hand.  At the same time, the SBC Executive Committee must not only support this effort but must accentuate the opportunity to give Cooperatively and Directly to support NAMB and the IMB.

Other mission agencies work hard to win their financial support and to partner in the advance of the Gospel.  Our missionaries overseas are not allowed to raise more support and even if they did it would not add food to their tables, whereas independent missionaries have a very clear financial need and motivation to raise support constantly. Could the future of the IMB  be built upon a change in the DNA of our missionary culture, which encourages but does not demand missionaries to be active mobilizers-through-service? Our ability to become servants of churches may win the hearts and the pockets of younger Southern Baptists. Regardless of the success or demise of the Cooperative Program, it seems to me that the effective funding of missions by future Southern Baptist churches will be tied to NAMB and IMB’s ability to provide value-added service among our church sending base.

As a missionary, I don’t like what I’m saying here. It just adds one more duty to the already over-worked missionaries.  As unseemly as it feels coming out of my on mouth, I am afraid that our missionaries in a competitive marketplace with other mission organizations.-competitive only in the sense of dollars and cents.  In the past we’ve never had to worry about financially needing 600 missionaries to either retire or not extend their service in order to reduce our numbers by 600. That day is here now.  How many more missionaries must return home before we consider a foundational change.  The answer is not found in berating SBC churches for not giving more. Unfortunately, our SBC mission entities and their personnel are going to have to painfully participate in the process of changing the current trend.  It simply is not acceptable that 600 missionaries must be attritioned into retirement.  Only a game-changing shift across the board will change this trend and our new leaders must be willing to change the role that missionaries of the IMB and NAMB contribute to the solution.

So the question remains, will young Southern Baptist reengage the mission of Southern Baptists?  Will the world sink or swim on the answer to that question?  (Obviously not.)

DNA is caught more than taught and it is the missionaries and some of our missional pastors and leaders who have that DNA “in their bellies.”  So, if missions is to be restored to its rightful place as our SBC core value, then our missionaries and our missional pastors and church leaders are going to be the ones to teach and mentor the next generation of Southern Baptists.

That’s all on this subject. Now let’s turn our hearts to the reason for our worship – the risen Lord.

{ 0 comments }

Cooperative Program Plus? I’m Just Asking

by Mark Morris on April 1, 2010

This post is a continuation of  an exercise in which students articulated some decisions that future leaders of the SBC might want to consider -not that seminary students know anything.   In this post, let’s look realistically at the most sacred and successful mission giving plan of the last century. A question is, why is the Cooperative Program struggling, particularly among young church leaders? Let’s speak the unspeakable and just innocently ask some questions about a tweaked version of CP.

Cooperative Program Plus – Please Don’t Kill The Messenger- I’m Just Asking Some Questions

There is a strong likelihood that even raising this subject could result in thirty lashes (to me) – so let me be very clear – I’m Just Asking Questions (have I said that enough yet?)

Could it be that for the Southern Baptist Church of Tomorrow, our insistence on Cooperative Program Giving alone and a demand for singular loyalty to the CP will accelerate a downward trend in SBC mission giving?  I’m not sure about this, but I am simply asking the question. The correct SBC position on this subject is that if we allow direct giving to specific SBC causes, we will undermine the CP which will lead us to that old, heaven-forbid, societal mission giving system that we baptists rejected years ago.  Maybe we should stop the conversation right now and agree not to discuss this further because even talking about it could erode our Cooperative Program?

Let’s just remember that most of our churches not only give to the CP but we also give to those, heaven forbid, mission societies that support some of our children and grandchildren who are serving through some of those societies.  In fact, many of our pastors have created their own 501.c3’s which are appealing directly to us and to our churches for support just like those old mission societies that we were supposed to have left behind for the Cooperative Program.  So maybe the question should stop here because any church that gives outside of the CP, Lottie, and Annie are actually undermining the Cooperative Program?

Let me raise another question, maybe the CP has already been undermined? Maybe it has already been undermined NOT by SBC churches giving directly to the IMB or NAMB or a particular SBC church plant, or a particular Missions Project?  Maybe it has been undermined rather by our giving to other well marketed NON-SBC causes, eg.:  Compassion International, Gideons, Samaritans Purse, Awanas, Child Evangelism, Pioneers, YWAM, etc?  I’m just asking the question.   Maybe we need to look at the giving habits of all of our churches and accept some realities, such as the idea that Southern Baptist churches give out of more than one mission pocket?  Maybe we should consider the unspoken reality that even our most loyal Southern Baptist churches DO NOT GIVE EXCLUSIVELY to the Cooperative Program? Don’t most of us give to Gideons once per year at least?  Maybe that’s too bold of an assertion?

It just seems to me that no matter how much we call some churches disloyal, an awful lot of First Baptist Churches and Podunk Holler Baptist Churches give to non-SBC entities.  Maybe, just maybe our own churches have already undermined CP in the dark of the night during those late budget meetings at churches throughout the country?  When Aunt Sallie’s niece is going on a mission trip with Campus Crusade, don’t we quietly donate to it even though it is not a Southern Baptist Mission Trip falling under any SBC agency.

Assuming that might be true, why do we make the multiple-channel giving reality a forbidden subject within our own house? People like to give to specific projects and to missionaries, and to causes but officially we cannot encourage churches to give to specific SBC missionaries, church plants or projects on the mission field. That highly personalized giving would undermine CP, even though it is what we do outside of our in-house SBC world. I’m confused aren’t you?

Since we tell SBC churches that there is only one way to give (CP), maybe all we have done is close the conversation?  Maybe by shutting off communication on the matter what we have actually done is to open church budgets to every other non-SBC entity which says, “You can give to us and here is why you should.”  So in essence, perhaps even our strongest SBC churches who give more than 10% to CP might also be found to be giving to Child Evangelism, or Awanas, or Campus Crusade, or some other worthy non-SBC entity?   I’m not saying they should not give to those good causes but if you think about it, that is money that could have been sent to the Cooperative Program, isn’t it? So any time a church gives outside of the “Walmart” of the SBC are they not undermining the CP?

What if we were to free churches, as the GCR Task Force suggests, by supporting the concept of churches giving directly to Southern Baptist-specific causes in addition to CP?  What if we were to tell them, give to the CP because it is the bread and butter of missions for the SBC, but also, if you see a missions need that is going unmet, by all means please fund that directly through gifts to that entity?  Instead, we tell people to give ONLY to CP, as well as to the two nice ladies (Annie and Lottie.)  But even regarding gifts to Annie and Lottie, aren’t there strong executive mandates on how often, how loudly, and under what circumstances we can promote them?  Isn’t it against the rules for IMB and NAMB to just go out and blatantly market a particular need?  Would the IMB be sending 600 missionaries home right now if they were freed to market Lottie Moon in the same manner that Compassion International markets to SBC churches and individuals?  What if every missionary were freed to raise one tenth of his or her support due to the financial shortfall?  Would such personalization enable those 600 missionaries to remain on the field? I don’t know if its true or not. I haven’t done the math. I’m just asking the question.

The view that CP, the IMB and NAMB are the greatest instruments for local and global evangelization may be true but for how long? Perhaps CP is in a losing battle for the hearts and minds of future generations of Southern Baptists?  How many young pastors struggle to passionately promote CP?  And for those who do promote it, how easy is it to communicate to your congregation, especially when you try to explain the breakdown of distribution?   Perhaps a result of our steadfastness on this matter is that we never succeed in transferring our parents’ zeal for CP mission support plan to the children and grandchildren of Southern Baptists?  If that is the case, perhaps the end result is that we lose those children to other churches which, by the way, live by that old forbidden societal mission support plan?   In my mind and heart, I don’t want to lose my children to other churches. So what can we do that will make sense to our children?

Thanks to the Lord if our children have learned from us to be people of the Bible; but does the Bible insist that our children remain Southern Baptist?  I want my three girls and their families to be Southern Baptists because I think we have such a rich biblical heritage and I believe in our missions plan and I want my children to value what I value.  Perhaps my children stumble over this CP alone concept as they search scripture for evidence?  Simply but, the Bible does not demand that churches give exclusively to the Cooperative Program?  But the fire in our eyes when we talk about this subject would indicate that someone is committing heresy. Our children just don’t get that.

Honestly, my heart is crying out for the future of the SBC but somehow CP just isn’t resonating as the thing that will get my children excited. Perhaps SBC young adults value Christian community and body life more than CP?  It seems that they value community so much that if they can’t find what they call transparent and authentic community at their parents’ First Baptist Church, they feel compelled to leave our denomination to join a small inner-city church, in spite of leaving CP behind?  Perhaps when they leave our churches the thing that bothers them most about leaving is not the fact that they are abandoning CP?  How many of us grandparents have seen our children and grandchildren go beyond our denomination in order to find something other than what we have to offer? So I’m asking the hard question even though it hurts me to do so, perhaps the hope of our denomination is not found in CP? Please future leaders, ask these hard questions.

Perhaps, our attitude toward the Cooperative Program (and everything else theologically non-essential) is worthy of examination? Maybe, just maybe, some of us died-in-the-wool Southern Baptists have stepped over the line into the veneration of the Cooperative Program and our insistence on it as the exclusive giving mechanism could contribute to our own decline?  Wouldn’t it be just like God, to take the thing that we see as the glue to all that holds us together and take it away from us?  I don’t want that to happen.  But isn’t that just the kind of thing God might do?  Then where would we be as Southern Baptists?

I’m just asking the question, because I know that when I cling too tightly to one thing, there is usually a lesson waiting for me around the corner.  I am not sure if any of this applies to our SBC attitude toward Cooperative Program, but perhaps, maybe?

Perhaps our children in great numbers are attending other congregations because they struggle to see the direct connection between:

-CP and God’s Word (because as an exclusive giving method it is a stretch biblically);

-CP and global missions (because the percentage that gets to the mission field is so minimal – see Rankin’s posts on this);

-CP and missional living (because they perceive us to be saying, “let us do missions for you”); and

-CP and winning North American lost people (because if that’s true why are the SBC and her churches in a steady decline?)

I’m convinced that the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force is not actually the force that is behind change in the SBC.  In my view, they are simply articulating the issues that are burning in the hearts of SBC adult children, our young pastors. The children and grandchildren of Southern Baptist are forcing the questions by voting with their feet and calling our hands on the true purpose of the Southern Baptist Convention. Perhaps the denomination is not only in decline for lack of evangelism, baptism, church planting, and doctrinal integrity?  Perhaps we are also in a decline because we can’t even maintain the interest, much less the passion of our own SBC children.  Maybe all of these declining markers are an indication of our spirituality?  At the same time, the decline in retention might be an indication of the the SBC’s unwillingness to adapt?

So as the new leaders of the SBC work out the new look and feel of the revised SBC, perhaps they should be encouraged, in spite of ridicule and berating from others, to be willing to speak the unspeakable and put any and all non-essential issues on the table?  Perhaps what we need is to find a way to support the Cooperative Program Plus direct giving to our own SBC causes that are suffering for lack of funds?

Perhaps it is not direct giving that will undermine the CP, especially since we’ve already undermined it by giving so generously to non-SBC causes?  Unleashing the restraints on Cooperative Program PLUS giving might enable us to fairly market our own commodities freely – not over against CP, rather in healthy apples-to-apples comparison shopping with other non-SBC service providers.

Stay tuned for the final post on this topic about the IMB and NAMB being the key to winning the hearts and maintaining the interest of the next generation of Southern Baptists.
See Dr. Rankin’s April 19 post which advocates a similar direction.

{ 2 comments }

Global Medical Alliance- Discount Before April 1

by Mark Morris on March 30, 2010

Today I interviewed Josie Gabdon, an IMB medical strategist in Asia.  She shared with me about an important Global Medical Alliance meeting scheduled for July 8-11 at Warren Baptist Church in Augusta, GA.  It is important to note that April 1 is the deadline for the discounted rate.

This is a medical gathering of international allied health professionals who minister in international communities around the world.  Most are connected to the International Mission Board.  Many of these health professional provide entry opportunities for the Gospel in places that church planters cannot enter.  Josie shared that indigenous communities around the world view health care providers as people who care about them.  Too often church planters are viewed as people who come only to convert them from Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam.  Whether they are veterinarians or pharmacists or therapists, medical professionals gain easy entry into countries, cities, and villages whose doors are otherwise closed.

Josie explained that water and hygiene are two of the biggest problems around the world.  Both of these problems can be addressed through preventive measures that churches and missionaries can be involved in. By addressing water and hygiene needs, we can communicate Christ clearly as we provide care.

Jesus said, Go, Heal the Sick and Tell the people that the kingdom of God is at hand.  That is precisely what we do as health professionals overseas.  We are instruments of physical healing and we are able to announce spiritual healing in that the Kingdom has already come through Jesus.  When a person’s physical needs go unmet, they struggle to hear the message of Christ’s spiritual healing.

So Josie, what is unique about this Global Medical Alliance meeting?

Perhaps the timing is what is particularly unique.  In the past there has been a perception that the International Mission Board does not do health work.  Word spread that we only do church planting.   At the same time there has been a shift toward targeted and highly strategic partnerships that get us as health workers more directly to church planting.

I think one of the turning points for us is the book Preach and Heal by Charles Fielding.  Dr. Fielding is a medical doctor/ church planter who has articulated a revolution in the IMB’s medical strategy, particularly in some highly restricted parts of the world.  Dr. Rankin was deeply moved by Dr. Fielding’s book and as a result, the president of the IMB is encouraging a renewed emphasis on a Preach and Heal type of strategy around the world.  This is a new day in medical missions for the International Mission Board.

Josie, why is this meeting so important?

This is important because medical personnel from around the world will come together to share strategies, training and opportunities for global ministry.  There will be workers from urban and rural settings, mud clinics and urban hospitals, community developers and veterinarians.  All will be gathered to share ways that local churches and individuals can get involved around the world.

At the IMB there is a new emphasis on the eternal impact of medical missions. On traditional medical mission trips, doctors have focused on how many people were treated and how many teeth were pulled, even how many times we shared some form of the gospel through a translator.  Too ofter we have been left with the question, “What did we really accomplish?”  What we will be sharing during this meeting is lessons we have learned about how to take our concern for health and caring for the whole person and sharing Christ more effectively as healers contributing to church planting.  By working strategically we are seeing churches started as people hear the Gospel and having their physical needs addressed.

Who should come to the meeting.

Any health professionals. Physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, public health workers, even pastors and mission pastors who have medical personnel in their churches. In addition medical/dental students, pharmacists, veterinarians, lab technicians, and more. Anyone who would like to be used of God internationally.

What will happen at the meeting?

There will be round table group discussions for people with particular expertise. Much of the time will include large group gatherings with speakers, training sessions, panel discussions, and cross-pollination from different fields of expertise. There will be specific training related to the ABC’s of Health Strategy.  Regardless of where God may be leading you to work, this meeting is for you.
Sign up today or tomorrow in order to save significantly.

{ 0 comments }

Decisions The Next SBC Leaders Should Make

by Mark Morris on March 28, 2010

I’m involved in a seminary PhD course in which students have been bouncing around ideas regarding the kind of bold leadership that our next three agency heads need to take.  It’s easy to make a disclaimer on ideas that come out of a class of a bunch of seminary students, so if these are too radical, just right them off as ideas from naive students. However, some of these PhD students have a number of years of church planting, mission administration, pastoral, and field missionary experience.

The next few blogs will present a few of my thoughts that have emerged through this exercise.

Why Is Change Needed?

Cultural Transition and Generational Transfer of Leadership – SBC churches and entities are caught in a cultural transition and a generational transfer of leadership. American culture has changed and Southern Baptists churches are in transition.  The question is whether or not the denomination will adapt.  County seat First Baptist Churches are transitioning to The Journey Church: (and in small letters “SBC.”)  A generational shift in leadership is occurring among pastors, and leaders.  We may bemoan the cultural and generational shifts but they are irreversible and require that we solidify our spiritual and theological convictions while transitioning SBC entities and ethos for the next generations. Our new presidents must hold us to solid theological foundations over and above denominational loyalty because the loyalty argument does not carry weight with young leaders. Our agencies must also be led by their new leaders to effectively serve the next generation.

Increasingly, our children don’t hold the same allegiance as we do to our denomination.  We can’t strong-arm them or guilt them into picking up this “old SBC” mantel.  Our children will decide on their own whether or not they earnestly desire to work with Southern Baptists on the mission to which God is leading our children.   The denomination must be rebuilt for the next generation, and this should be done with older and younger Southern Baptists working together.  I truly believe such is Johnny Hunt’s desire.  The GCR Task force is starting the process but the next presidents of the convention and her agencies will complete the task of forging this road together.

The future of our SBC agencies is found in connecting service-to-churches with funding, both Cooperative and direct funding. Southern Baptists are consumers. Making a single-source indirect connection from my wallet, to my church’s offering plate, to the State Convention’s Cooperative Program, to the Executive Committee, and finally to a rather confusing redistribution that eventually hits IMB and NAME, just doesn’t hold muster on its own among young Southern Baptists.   The IMB and NAMB should be service providers.  If people prefer IMB and NAMB goods and services, churches will donate to them. If not, they will find other providers. The IMB and NAMB and the Executive Committee can no longer assume the allegiance of Southern Baptist churches. “Just trust us,” doesn’t work for young people. In today’s economy and culture, Southern Baptist agencies must re-earn the hearts of Southern Baptists each year.  The hearts of young Southern Baptists will be won by proving themselves as productive, service-oriented partners to local churches this year, and the next and the next year.  Otherwise those churches will find other partners before the year is out.  Young Baptist’s allegiance to the Southern Baptist Convention, The IMB, or NAMB, even if earned this year, cannot be assumed for the next.  Sorry for the bad news, but, simply examine the non-SBC vendors and partners with whom SBC churches invest their budgets. We need to acknowledge that even our most denominationally-supportive churches work within a free marketplace which is very competitive. The concept of a dollar riding a round-about roller coaster that eventually gets reduced to less than 8% when it gets to the mission field is hard to swallow when a young Baptist can give to Compassion International and receive direct and immediate correspondence from the child who is supported by 80-90% of your dollar.  The future of the SBC agency is found in making a more direct connection between that agency’s (IMB or NAMB) service-to-churches and that church’s sense of personalized, and direct funding of that agency.

What Changes Are Needed

Strategic and Logistical Coordination Between IMB and NAMB Services - The International Mission Board must become a Global Mission Service Team. The “I”(International) in International Mission Board and “N.A.” in North American Mission Board ultimately needs to be replaced by the word “Global,” which includes local and global fields. The “B” (Board) in Mission Board needs to be overtaken by an ethos of  “S.T.” which tells Southern Baptists that We Are Your Missions Service Team. Ultimately the two boards need to coordinate their activities as a collaborative Global Mission Service Collective which incorporates entity-directed initiatives as well as local-church directed initiatives.  The IMB and NAMB can’t be solely about what they do but they must be about the mission work of churches.

NAMB and IMB Service Orientation – The blessing of the Cooperative Program is that it has maximized Southern Baptists’ impact. The challenge of the CP is that this has trained churches to rely on professional missionaries to go and do international mission work for local churches. In the same vein the CP has taught missionaries that they don’t have to serve the local church.

Likewise, the Cooperative Agreements have placed some entities in a position of Sugar Daddy when it comes to funding church planting and major initiatives.  The moving of funds from the executive to NAMB and back to the states has created a very complex system and has resulted in at least the perception of a great deal of fat.  We can argue that there is no fat, but young Southern Baptists don’t believe it. Since young Southern Baptists are our future, we better listen to them.

Stay tuned for the next post about Cooperative Program Plus.

{ 2 comments }

Courageous, Original, Constructive Leadership-needed today!

by Mark Morris on March 24, 2010

Rufus Anderson is known as the Grand Strategist of American Missions.

From 1832 to 1875 he served as the foreign secretary or leader of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.  Anderson was a student of mission policy and strategy. He was (you guessed it) the equivalent of a denominational missions leader – an administrator. Some might call him a missions bureaucrat.  (Oh brother – tell me no!)   How many denominational administrators (bureaucrats) would get the following complement?

Nearly 40 years after his ministry ended, Robert E. Speer referred to Anderson as “the most original, the most constructive, and the most courageous student of missionary policy whom this country has produced, and one of the two most aggressive and creative administrators of missionary work.” (Beaver, 9)

So what was so outstanding about Anderson that he received such accolades? He was not a missionary – he stayed behind and supported them.  And what will it take for the next round of  denominational and mission entity leaders to get the same type of accolades as did Anderson?

A Quick Look At Some of Anderson’s Innovations

Anderson challenged the accepted missionary trends such as viewing “the civilization of the heathen” as the measure of effective missions and evangelism.  Rufus Anderson believed it a grave mistake to make the transformation of civilization the aim of the mission. (Beaver, 13)

Under Anderson the Three Self Strategy (self-governing, self supporting, self-propagating) of indigenous church planting became the norm.   He called the church to a simple spiritual mission of proclamation of the gospel so as to win souls, gather them into churches, and enlist them in the same mission. (Beaver, 13) He challenged missionaries to raise up indigenous leadership and to foster the development of churches on the mission field according to the style of the people, not according to Western models and to do so at their (indigenous population’s) own expense.

He never used the word “Glocal” but he was an advocate of the concept in that he saw foreign and domestic missions as “departments” of the same field. Thus, he said that no special call was needed for the workers in the “foreign missions department.”  Such was  a courageous stance and a diversion from the norm of elevating missionaries to god-like status.

He did not hold missionaries up as some special class but viewed them as volunteers, men and women obeying Christ out of a deep love for the Savior and out of the duty to obey. He highly esteemed missionaries and saw the role of the Mission Board as to provide minimal control and to ease their burden to enable missionaries to spend their greatest possible efforts on reaching the lost.  He saw the “control” of missionaries as largely guided by their consciences and the mutual accountability of missionaries one to another.  He encouraged missionaries to take initiative and to rely upon Jesus.

There was an impatience and passion about Anderson that was palpable.  His was a perception of the fullness of time and the demand of God’s calling upon the church of his day.   He perceived the timeliness of circumstances and opportunities in his epoch which created a unique window of openness, by God’s providence, for Christians to reach and evangelize all nations.

Such leadership is what I’m praying for today.  If we ever needed Courageous, Original, Constructive Leadership- it is needed today!

In fact, my fear is that if an extraordinary level of courageous, original, constructive leadership does not arise to lead us through the current limited openness of this moment, God forbid that we lose the opportunity which is within our grasp to actually see all nations reached, in our lifetimes.

Lord raise up courageous, original, constructive leadership of the ilk of Rufus Anderson.

{ 1 comment }

‘No bottled answers: to ‘what do I do’ now?

by Mark Morris on March 19, 2010

This story, along with many others at CommissionStories.com gives a telling picture of the day-to-day realities in disaster areas around the world. Volunteers are there making a difference.

‘No bottled answers:’
Haitians ask volunteers ‘what do I do’ now?
Staff
See more stories at CommissionStories.com
What do I do?” the Haitian man asked helplessly. The Jan. 12 earthquake had destroyed his home and taken the lives of his wife and two children. He was living out of a suitcase.

Butch Vernon, pastor of Thoroughbred Community Church in Nicholasville, Ky., struggled to answer the man’s question. Vernon was in Haiti as a volunteer with a Kentucky Baptist disaster relief team.

“I’m not asked that question a lot back in the States, you know?” said Vernon, his voice cracking with emotion.

“It’s not one of those deals where you can say, ‘take two [Bible] verses and call me in the morning. It’s the only time I’m going to see that guy, and there are no bottled answers.

“I prayed with him and I hugged him, and we gave him some medicine that won’t fix [his problems], but it made him feel better,” he added. “We’re seeing a lot of that.”

Teams on the ground in Haiti
From Jan. 31 to Feb. 8, Vernon and the Kentucky team joined forces with a Mississippi Baptist disaster relief team. They were part of a coordinated effort among the Florida Baptist Convention, which has a long-standing relationship with Haitian Baptists; Baptist Global Response, a Southern Baptist relief and development agency; the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board.

The toughest part for a volunteer is accepting that you can’t help everyone, said Daniel Edney, who directed the medical response efforts with the Mississippi disaster relief team.

“But we can take care of those who God puts in front of us,” said Edney, a member of First Baptist Church, Vicksburg, Miss., who had led relief teams in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and in South Asia after the tsunami.

“When those you help walk out with a smile on their face, you know you’ve done something.”

When the Mississippi volunteers pulled up to a church on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, they were surprised to see people praising and worshipping God — so many of them were struggling to get by without food and water.

“It was a neat thing to drive up and hear them singing and praising the Lord and worshipping,” said Kay Cassibry, Mississippi’s state WMU executive director who led the 10-member relief team.

“They have been so receptive,” added Cassibry, a member of Highland Colony Baptist Church in Ridgeland. “People do not know us, but they are receptive to our hugs and everything.”

Many helped during week
During the week, the Mississippi team helped at makeshift medical clinics and saw more than 1,100 patients.

“We have treated all kinds of things,” said Cassibry, while walking through one of the clinics. “There were a lot of respiratory problems, a lot of infection. We had to set a couple of bones.

“We’ve got a guy on an IV,” she added. “He asked for a Bible as soon as he woke up. We were pretty excited about that.”

For Hester Pitts, another Mississippi volunteer, the biggest blessings were the thank you letters she received from Haitians.

“I know what it means for us to be here,” said Pitts, a member of First Baptist Church of Vicksburg, “but [these letters are] tangible evidence of what it means for them.”

Pitts admitted her life-changing trip to Haiti was almost a missed opportunity.

Vacation interrupted to serve
She was on vacation with her husband, Kerry, and two other couples in Tampa, Fla., when she was contacted about joining the relief team. Pitts — a retired medical technologist — admitted she wanted to wait until later to volunteer, but she couldn’t shake her burden for Haiti.

Pitts agreed to go to Haiti immediately and asked others in her vacation group if they wanted to join her. One of her friends, David Baldwin, broke down in tears.

“He said, ‘Hester, I’ve been sitting here praying that God would open that door for me to go,’” Pitts said. “I could not believe it.”

Within two hours, the couples were on the road back to Mississippi so that Baldwin and Pitts could prepare for their trip. For Pitts, giving up her vacation was an opportunity of a lifetime.

“I’m just thankful that I didn’t miss the experience,” she said. “I came so close to telling God ‘no.’”

{ 0 comments }

Making a Difference: 2 Churches, Pilots, Motorcycle Club

by Mark Morris on March 18, 2010

Here’s a local news report about two churches, FedEx Pilots, and a motorcycle club who are making a difference in an under-served community in Memphis.   As Easter approaches, it is a good idea to ask if our lives reflect Christ who died and rose for us. While the following article is from a secular news source, the churches and the believers involved saw a community need and took action. Makes you ask, what am I doing to make a difference and point people to the living Lord Jesus Christ in me?

Taking Back Our Neighborhood: Manassas baseball field

MEMPHIS, TN (WMC-TV) - The baseball team at Manassas High School began play on a “field of dreams” this week.

Teamwork between some caring FedEx pilots, a motorcycle club and two Memphis churches resulted in a home run for Manassas High baseball players. “It was a great idea to be able to give something back and to give these kids a home field to play on,” said FedEx pilot Lamar Washington.

Until Monday, Manassas had no home field advantage because it had no home field. “We played all road games,” said Manassas baseball coach Dennis Paden.  “We didn’t even have a facility to practice.” The field began to take shape when FedEx pilot Eric Lampelay’s wife began clearing rocks from a field with Oasis of Hope, a ministry of Hope Presbyterian.  Lampelay told co-pilot Washington, who brought his motorcycle club to help rake up the rocks. “There’s a lot of interest and guys are always looking for an opportunity to do something good in the community,” Washington said.

Volunteers from Hope Presbyterian and Bellevue Baptist Church graded the fields.  They donated sod and clay for the infield and pitcher’s mound. On opening day, Lampelay threw out the ceremonial first pitch. At long last, the Tigers of Manassas took their home field against the Pharaohs of Raleigh-Egypt.

“It’s just a blessing that we finally got a field,” said Montrail Brown, Manassas baseball player.  “It’s going to draw a crowd, and more people are going to play.” Paden said the field was a blessing for all involved.

“It’s blessed the people who’ve built the field as much as the kids on the receiving end,” Paden said.  “It really has been something magical.” The Manassas Tigers won their first game on their home field in the bottom of the 7th inning.

Copyright 2010 WMC-TV. All rights reserved.

{ 0 comments }

A Life of Purpose

by Mark Morris on March 16, 2010

The attached video (to the right of this front-page posting) tells the story of Shadi, an indigenous Christian in Gaza who chooses against all odds to live out his faith in a very volatile setting.  His pastor was recently murdered and thrown into an empty field.  Muslim children at the school where Shadi teaches are magnetically drawn to the love of Christ that emanates from Shadi’s being. How strange for a Christian to be teaching in a Muslim school. Sounds like the kind of thing that Jesus would do.

What are you living for? What is your bold step of faith in the midst of a world that is either complacent or hostile toward faith?

If I am living a life of purpose, I am on a path of knowing nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  To know The Crucified One results in self-crucifixion by believers today.  Since Shadi has placed himself on the cross already, he also is living by the resurrected power of The Resurrected One.

So in the story of Shadi, it becomes clear, when you’re already crucified there is no need to fear death. And when your already living in the power of the resurrection, there is power in your walk and talk.   Living purposefully? It’s about being crucified with Christ, nevertheless living in His resurrected power – even on the streets of Gaza.

Read the “Last Letters” of missionaries and contemporary leaders at www.thelastletter.org

{ 0 comments }

Time for GRITTY Leadership in the SBC (#GCR)

by Mark Morris on March 1, 2010

Time for G.R.I.T.T.Y. Leadership in the SBC

Grit (noun)

  1. sand or stone grains
  2. sandstone
  3. texture of grains
  4. 4. firmness of character

The GCR Task force has given its report.  Tweets are flying.  Positions are being taken.  Debate is occurring. Now what?

Another way I’ve heard this question expressed is, “Ok, so how do we get there from here? What is the path?”

I’m neither a historian nor a fortune teller but a look at the past would tell me that the answer is not found in the perfect plan but in the right leadership. In June I’m sure a plan will be approved but it will not be the perfect system. The answer is not found in breaking historic commitments or renewing them.  The answer is not found in the perfectly worded vision statement or in changing our jargon about acceptable Baptist giving.  So how do we find our way forward to a brighter Southern Baptist future?

My answer?  G.R.I.T.T.Y. Leadership. This epoch is an irrevocable moment in time for which leaders of a different kind are needed.

Let me explain.

To illustrate my point, it’s taken the gritty leadership of Johnny Hunt to get us to the point of recommending a GCR Task Force, approving and selecting a representative GCR Task Force, plodding through the task of the GCR Task Force and finally presenting an initial GCR Task Force Report.   Whether you like the outcome or not, we’re talking gritty leadership against some serious barriers! I’m glad we have the report and I love the fact that Johnny has not ignored our uncertain future. On the contrary, Johnny Hunt has led the SBC to address the harsh reality that we must change our system in order to address the realities of today and tomorrow.  The GCR Task Force Report is nice (intentional understatement), but what it took to get there is what is earth shattering to me.

My point is that hope for a brighter SBC future is not found in this report or that – this proposal or that.  Hope is found in Christ as he is lived out through refreshing, catalytic, leaders such as Johnny has exemplified. What I’m praying for is three more of those G.R.I.T.T.Y. leaders.

While I am concerned that the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention not be an un-godly brawl, I’m not too worried about the tightness of the documents presented. A brawl at the convention will cost us the next generation of Southern Baptists.  I’m very concerned that we exercise godliness in our handling of this matter. Please, Holy Spirit, protect us from pettiness in Orlando.

I am most concerned that catalytic change agents of a different kind be put in positions of influence.  Scott Brewer, who prodded me to give my thoughts on this, recently said in a private exchange, “We are at the end of where we have been.” No truer statement has been made about our current crossroad.

Even if we can agree on something in Orlando, my hope for the future is not so much in the formula or the plan on which we settle. My deepest burden and my greatest hope for our denominations is the selection of the right kind of leaders in key vacancies.

In the past, denominational leaders would have paid their dues, having sat on the correct committees and most of all having been connected in the right ways.   I believe Johnny Hunt began this process in order to issue in a new generation and a different kind of leader.  The potential leaders about whom I’m referring object to the old good-ole-boy system and thus would be self-disqualified for lack of participation in the old vetting process.  In other words, the leaders of the future may not be found on the right committees and do not want to take the time to become acceptable within the existing system.     Nevertheless, those young catalytic leaders are in the wings and must be found in our midst.  Young catalytic leaders of the future SBC must be measured by a different stick than the one used to measure the leaders of the old SBC.

I’m praying that God will guide current trustees and Southern Baptist decision-makers to prayerfully seek and find leaders who represent the SBC of tomorrow, not the SBC of yesterday.

What type of leader is needed to build the SBC of tomorrow? G.R.I.T.T.Y. leaders.

Grit may be a small granule but its persistent and irritating quality matched with a firmness of character plays a defining and prophetic role.   It takes a tiny piece of grit imbedded within an oyster to create a beautiful pearl.

Currently, many of our children are going elsewhere for their mission connection in our cities and in the world.  That’s ok for them, but it’s telling for our denomination.  If we’re honest, it really bothers us that our children and grandchildren don’t value our SBC in the same way that we value it.   We have also seen the stats that tell us that we are in decline and that lostness is on the rise.  This SBC crisis of the future is the impetus that demands a transitioning SBC. While change is needed, we dare not throw out the baby with the bath water – we just need the right leaders who will examine the tub and make sure they identify where the baby and the bather water part. Thus, my conclusion is don’t give me a perfect resolution to pass, give me godly, catalytic leaders who will serve as grit in the oyster.

GRITTY leadership is what we need to produce the pearl of a renewed SBC for our children and grandchildren.

So what is a G.R.I.T.T.Y. Leader? (Forgive the acronym – I could not resist.)

Gifted for the task.   If the new NAMB is going to be about church planting in the cities of North America then we need more than a statesmen as NAMB president. We need a NAMB leader who is a city church planter at heart.   If the IMB is going to be about serving churches to reach the least reached around the world and at home, then we need a mission strategist who is experienced at reaching the lost around the world and in the US. If the executive leadership of this denomination is going to chart a course for the future then we need to find an executive committee leader who has innovated a non-traditional course under extraordinary circumstances among a younger population.  These are just examples of the kind of giftedness needed.  For each role we need the person appropriately gifted and skilled for the daunting task ahead of him.   Since our children and grandchildren value authenticity over glitz and perfect planning, we need leaders in all of these key positions to be transparent and innovative.  For the generations that come, leadership is about being someone whose DNA and way of life reflects the desired outcome.  In other words, don’t give me a leader who points me to the path. Give me a leader who will lead me by living it out.  I’m praying that God will lead us to gifted leaders who understand the realities of global lostness and the North American church context of tomorrow.

Righteous in Christ and empowered by God’s Spirit.  Grit is solid in character and that character is strong enough to withstand great tension. If there is ever a time when solid character is needed, it is now.  The leaders who will issue in an SBC of the future will suffer immense criticism and enormous attack. Their character must be unblemished if they are to weather the storm and remain fixed upon our Lord’s direction for our future.  As godly leaders, their character must reflect Kingdom rather than self-serving values.  Righteous leadership will be found through prayer and fasting.

Innovative leaders. I’m not convinced that at the upcoming SBC gathering we can all agree upon and vote in the most innovative plan.  In fact too much innovation at this point would create havoc. I am convinced that if the IMB, NAMB, and Executive leaders of the future are innovators, that God will lead these godly men to develop the new plans that will create the path for our children.  Innovative leaders are not managers. Innovative leaders are thinkers, strategists, and dreamers. Innovative leaders are intelligent risk takers who are forward leaning rather than historically inclined.  More than ever, we need innovative leaders who are empowered to lead.

Tested leaders.   This is where it gets tricky.  Some would say that young leaders simply are not tested.  However, there are exceptions.  A young leader may have been through the necessary experiences in ministry and life to be well tested.  Although tested leaders are more often than not, older, we have some tremendous young leaders in our midst.  For the task we face as Southern Baptists, the leaders who will carry this burden must be tested but they must also be young enough to be able to dream a new dream and carry it through to fruition.

Temperate leaders.  I’m not suggesting we find meek and mild leaders. Instead, I’m praying that God will lead us to bold leaders whose lives reflect Godly self-control.  Such is the fruit that grows out of a close walk with our living Lord. Power, influence and access to great resources all have a corrupting influence.  The leaders, on whose shoulders the future is carried, must be humble, and temperate in character. Such comes through suffering and walking with Jesus.

Younger leaders.  I’m not suggesting a twenty-something leader. However, I am suggesting that younger leaders are needed at this time in order to build their future and ours.  Young leaders have everything to gain by shaping the DNA, and by building the plans and systems for the SBC of tomorrow.  This is not the time to hand our future to older leaders, whose vision is built off of memories of yesterday and whose inclination is to bolster the past and maintain the present course.  A new course is required. I trust that God will place His vision for the future in the hearts of young leaders. And I pray that those selecting them will look far enough and pray hard enough to prophetically select today, the leaders of tomorrow.

My greatest burden and prayer is for the ones who are making these important decisions about our future – the selection committees that are choosing the leaders of the new SBC.

Will you pray with me for our future SBC leaders?

{ 1 comment }

Scott Brewer’s Reflections on GCR Report

by Mark Morris on February 27, 2010

I want to introduce Scott Brewer.  He is Pastor of Meadowbrook Church in Redmond, WA and is also President of the Northwest Baptist Convention representing SBC work in the North West.  Scott attended the GCR Task Force Report and gives these reflections.  I’m particularly interested to hear the response of this church planter/pastor/ convention leader from a “pioneer” state. Such a pioneer perspective will not be heard as loudly or as often as that of a pastor or leader from a Southern State.  It’s worth listening.

Reflections on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force Report
Scott Brewer, February 26, 2009

Because of my role during this year with the Northwest Baptist Convention I was invited to attend the February 22, 2010 meeting of the SBC Executive Committee. During the evening plenary session the GCRTF gave their report. My reflections are in essence my process of thinking “out loud”. I haven’t drawn any conclusions yet. The report was described as “preliminary” and therefore may see some change. A final report is to be released to the entire convention May 3, 2010. A vote on the recommendations is expected at the annual meeting of the SBC June 15-16, 2010.

The report was given in 6 “Components” and I’ll respond to each.

Component 1
I understood this to be a call to Southern Baptists to being a more focused missional people. As such we would agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be presented to every person in the world and that we must be about the work of making disciples. In this component I heard the call to a new day of including the next generation of leaders, building trust and unity across the convention and elevating the importance of the local church over the convention.

No one can disagree with Component 1. I did not hear anything that would indicate how we would address this. As with subsequent components, the questions “how will we address this” and “who will be accountable for addressing this” was not clear.

Component 2
I heard this component to be a call to reinvent the North American Mission Board. At the heart of it I heard the call for “empowering” NAMB in the works of starting churches and strengthening churches (in evangelism and discipleship) by decentralizing NAMB out of Atlanta and deploying personnel around the country. This decentralization would happen by creating 7 regions.

This component includes an empowering of NAMB financially by doing away with “cooperative agreements” with state conventions. As I understand it, with respect to the NWBC, we would no longer receive CP dollars from NAMB for church planting and church strengthening (which is a large portion of the NWBC budget). Rather NAMB would use those funds for implementing their strategies in each of the newly formed 7 regions. Obviously this raises questions about the future of state conventions that exist outside of the South. I’m not sure how a large southern state convention would be impacted by this but our convention would be radically impacted.

One stated goal was to see a redistribution of CP funds that make up the NAMB budget so that areas of America that are outside of the South would receive more funding for church planting and strengthening. The funding suggestion though is in the context for greater empowerment of NAMB’s involvement in these regions with the stated goals of seeing better efficiency and accountability of the funds.

A final piece to this component was to see NAMB develop THE “Leadership Center of America” for training and developing church planters and church leaders. This overlaps with the assignment of Lifeway and therefore will involve some clarification of who will do what.

Component 3
This component suggests that the International Mission Board must be released to accomplish the mission of reaching un-reached people groups “without regard to any geographical limitations”. I heard this to be a call for IMB to not only be intentional about penetrating every people group outside of America (even so-called closed countries) but also those same non-American people groups within the USA.  This component seeks to leverage that IMB expertise upon US soil. I think this has been something needed for some time. How this will be coordinated with a more empowered NAMB remains to be seen.

Component 4
The recommendation for this component is to move the responsibility for stewardship emphasis and promotion away from the SBC Executive Committee and to the state conventions.  The EC has held this responsibility since 1997 when Lifeway said that they could not effectively carry out this assignment. In short, I simply see this recommendation as a way to add some justification to the later recommendation for moving 1% of the CP money that the EC receives to IMB.  How state conventions that are outside the south and that will already face significant financial “hits” from these recommendations can add the stewardship assignment remains to be seen.

Stewardship emphasis and promotion is very significant since the average Southern Baptist contributes only 2.56% of their income. The mission of the church is seriously hampered by this poor stewardship.

Component 5
In short this component seemed to me to be a redefining of how Southern Baptist giving is considered and categorized. While affirming the importance of the Cooperative Program, the recommendation is to identify a larger category of missions giving called “Great Commission Giving”. Therefore, a church’s giving through the Cooperative Program as well as other designated giving for state conventions and local associations would all be considered Great Commission Giving. I think this also includes a local church’s mission projects and trips.

The implications are not clear to me but here’s what occurs to me. For years there have been churches that have chosen to redirect their giving around the CP and directly give to IMB or NAMB or seminaries, etc. because of the dissatisfaction with either what their state convention was doing or with the amount of CP dollars their state convention kept before passing it on to the national level.  A result of that practice was that those churches looked like poor contributors to missions because their CP numbers were low. It seems to me that being able to count a church’s CP contributions and designated contributions as the new benchmark of Great Commission Giving better legitimizes those churches with low CP numbers.

I think one of the desires of the GCRTF was to address the shortfall of national dollars available for the work of missions and IMB especially. There has been an unsuccessful call for several years now for state conventions to keep fewer CP dollars and pass on a greater portion. This seems to me to be a way to get around that. I could be way off base here.

Component 6
The GCRTF recommends that the CP breakdown of funds increases the IMB share by 1% so that it is now 51% and decreases the Executive Committee share by 1% so that it is now 2.4%.  I agree that IMB should receive more of the CP pie. I could agree to 55% but from which area to take those funds I don’t know.

Closing Thoughts:
1. It seems to me that the call for being a more focused missional, unified people is right but must contain some idea about how to get there. Trust is a “relational thing” and relationships demand time and proximity with each other. This also demands humility and a willingness to give up power. Only a Spirit stirred repentance and recommitment to Christ’s mission can do this.

2. Something radical does need to happen with NAMB. Decentralizing and regionalizing makes some sense. What impact will this have on advancing the reorganization and new direction of the NWBC? There has already been so much change for our staff I’m concerned about morale and the capacity to focus on today and implement newly developed strategic plans.

3. How will all of the GCRTF recommendations play with the average pastor and church? I consider myself to be aware of and involved in convention life in an above average way and at the end of the day we only have so much time for convention matters.

4. What’s the answer to the “so what?” question? If all of the GCRTF recommendations move forward, what difference ultimately will that mean to 40,000+ SBC churches? It will impact church plants because they have limited autonomy and have to be responsive to convention initiatives or practices in order to receive their funding.   Established churches do not.

{ 2 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →