;){kind=logo}
NAMB Trustee Beginnings…
Posted by Dave Samples in Baptist Life
I am less than a month away from attending orientation as a new trustee of the North American Mission Board. This is one of those opportunities that almost seem too good to be true. I know that the cool thing to do would be to pretend like it is no big deal–but for me it’s a HUGE deal. I grew up in the home of Home Mission Board missionary. The Home Mission Board is of course what NAMB was called before the restructure. My dad was what-was-called a Language Missionary. He planted churches out west on Indian (can I say that?) reservations. That was my life until I went away to boarding school at age thirteen.
It might be of interest to know how this opportunity presented itself. I came to Colorado nine years ago to pastor Cornerstone. To most it was a giant step down. I left a First Baptist Church in small town Texas to provide leadership for a small church in Colorado that was five times smaller than the Texas church. I had a clear call, however, and the passion to go with it. Nine years later we have built a building and have grown to 250+. Along the way, I have served numerous positions in our association. I was asked to serve two terms on our state convention’s Executive Board and in time was asked to serve as its chairman. I am currently serving my first term as our state convention’s second vice president. It was in this capacity that I was in the room when our state’s SBC nominating committee members asked convention officers for suggestions to replace our outgoing NAMB Trustee. Someone at the B21 luncheon in Louisville mentioned that most of the leadership positions are given just because you happen to be in the room. Well, I happened to be in the room and my name was put forward to the convention in Louisville. Again, don’t miss the fact that I have done a great many “little” jobs along the way. I have, and will continue to serve my church, my association, my state convention, and now my denomination.
I am excited to serve the convention at the North American Mission Board in large part because every time that I have ever served anywhere there has been restructure and change taking place. I am excited about the GCR and I look forward to playing a role inside NAMB as a trustee as the GCR hopefully takes off this next year.
What do I hope to accomplish?
I want to see more Cooperative Program and Annie Armstrong dollars in the hands of missionaries on the streets. I want to see administrative costs minimized and missionary efforts maximized. I want to speak for the four hundred churches of Colorado. I want to be a voice for the bivocational ministers across our country who have a hard time making an associational meeting much less the national SBC. I want to question the status quo and think biblically outside of the box. I want to be much in prayer and humble in my speech. I want to keep an eye on Lola Adams’ Annie Armstrong gifts. She’s an elderly widow in our church who gives sacrificially so that the missionaries can have enough food to eat. I want to represent Pastor Shorty Huffman who leads a Cowboy Church and travels the rodeo circuit preaching the gospel. I want to represent Richard Holloman who leads a ministry to those struggling with same-sex attraction. I want to keep a focus on our church planters who often go to the difficult places to serve in obscurity. I want to represent the chaplains who serve in our armed forces around the world. I want to confront wrong-doing should I see it and encourage gracious giving whenever possible. I want to be teachable and loving.
Let me also say that I hope to be a bridge between our sbcIMPACT readers and NAMB. Those being said please feel free to comment and let me know what your concerns might be so that I can represent you too. You can expect that I will be bringing reports to the SBC through this medium sharing whatever is appropriate. I’ll be a rookie for a while and so much of what I will be doing in these early days will simply be learning and getting to know the ropes.
I am grateful for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I intend to make it count. Thanks for allowing me to serve you through the North American Mission Board. Stay tuned…
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Dave,
I like a guy that doesn’t whine about work. Thanks for having aspiration to serve God’s adopted and spread the gospel around your state and in the world. Less whiner’s and more preachers!
Blessings,
Chris
Dave:
Your appointment is absolutely great!
Right now, I think both the NAMB and the IMB are at a turning point. I believe that both have sailed through some “rough waters”.
The NAMB had a big shake-up a few years ago with a new President. It is now moving forward. Under leadership from people like you the future is bright. What we need in the BoTs of our mission agencies is people that are focused on moving the work forward while avoiding “artificial posturing” to advance some narrow theological agenda.
We need people who represent everyone in the SBC community including the people you mention, “Aunt Jane”, “Pastor Joe” the cowboy pastor, “Brother Willie” the bivocational pastor out there in Cheyenne Wells, etc.
To me, one of the most important things you said is that you intend to keep people in Colorado (and I hope by extension in all of SBC life) informed on what is going on with the NAMB. Maybe you can even have a blog about key things that are happening at the NAMB and some of the issues that are on the table.
I think that the proceedings of the BoTs of both of our mission boards should be “online”. The best idea would be to have them available via streaming video or a podcast that we could go back and look at. You idea of reporting on what is happening via your website and/or blog is excellent.
Of course I recognize that there may have to be “executive sessions” which are not public which should not be “on the record”. But for plenary sessions which are supposedly public they should actually be public — by public I mean they should actually be PUBLIC. It should be possible for anyone to go back and see who said what about anything.
I don’t know why this is but in the past it has been the case that for all practical purposes even the public or “plenary” sessions were a military secret. There were dozens of people in the room but for the average guy in the pew, or the average pastor it was just about impossible to have any idea of what was going on. It is as if the the members of the BoT were “sworn to secrecy” regarding whatever their deliberations were.
Most agencies publish minutes but they are so sanitized you can’t get any idea of what is actually happening during the discussions.
This made it possible for a few people on the BoT to effectively “take it over” and push some narrow agenda. This is exactly what happened in the BoT of the IMB in past years. As you may know, I’m going on “my own dime” as a layman and blogging about whatever goes on at the BoT of the IMB. I’m going to keep doing this until it is no longer necessary. If you do the same thing at the BoT of the NASB (only in your case you are actually a member of the BoT)it WOULD BE HUGE.
I find this absolutely impossible to believe — but I know for a fact — that the BoT of the IMB (and maybe the NASB BoT has a similar rule) has a formal “code of procedures” (some kind of “blue book” I think) which formalizes the idea that members of the BoT have to “not discuss” areas in which there are various opinions. They have to adhere to their own self-enforced protocol to not talk to the constituients about things unless there is already a clear consensus. That idea is crazy! The more contentious an issue potentially is, the more pro-active that the members of the BoT have to be in reaching out to take the pulse of the wider SBC community. To the extent that there is a discussion regarding some “potentially divisive issue” it should happen BEFORE the BoT takes a vote on that subject not AFTER.
It is about time that the members of the BoT treat themselves like adults and quit muzzling themselves. It is about time that they treat each other with civility and respect. It is about time that they toss out “guidelines of conduct” which are in reality just mechanisms to allow a few BoT leaders a way to artificially control the rest of the board.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK
Roger,
I like your idea of putting the plenary sessions of trustee meetings online. It would not be difficult to do.
I am not aware at this point what the code of conduct is for NAMB trustees. I intend to play by the rules and to conduct myself in an honorable way. I’ve read Wade’s book and I certainly hope that nothing similar has been occurring at NAMB. I don’t believe that it has.
Thanks for commenting…
Chris,
Hang around me long enough and you’ll hear plenty of whining . Thanks for your confidence.
Sounds great. I hope you’re able to have the impact you hope to have. I’d hate to see you share a fate similar to Wade Burleson on the IMB.
I think it would be exciting to be a trustee, but (here’s some whining) our Iowa convention doesn’t meet the numerical standards to get trustee representation.
Congratulations and have fun.
Dave Miller,
I guess that I assumed that all state conventions had representation. Colorado is pretty small. I learn something new every day. Do the good folks in Iowa have anyone serving on any of the trustee boards?
Since you are a new trustee, allow me to offer a perspective from one pastor.
NAMB came close to losing my trust over the Reccord debacle of a few years ago, with the millions wasted, the heavyhanded leadership, the disgruntled employees and former employees, the reputed fabulous severance, the detailed waste of Cooperative Program and Annie Armstrong dollars on trivialities, etc., etc.
Although I had a phone conversation with a local NAMB trustee who pronounced that things have changed, and in spite of the new leadership declaring that this was a new era for the agency, I remain lukewarm toward NAMB and NAMB’s work. I am still unsure of the strength of leadership at the agency and I question their efficiency in utilizing the scores of millions of dollars they receive.
In my view, NAMB still has a long way to go. Moreso, the question of the legitimacy of the agency itself is an open one. If the Great Commission Task Force doesn’t zero in on NAMB’s shortcomings then the entire effort may be wasted.
I hope that trustees like yourself aren’t oblivious to the credibility problem that NAMB has had and continues to have and I certainly hope that neither you nor any others among the trustees are willing to sit still and be quiet and let things slide along without asking hard questions.
You have my prayers.
William,
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Up to and including the present, I have no more information about the current state of NAMB than you do. No doubt the Reccord problems gave NAMB a black eye. It was unfortunate that it was exposed by the press and not by the Trustees who are elected to notice such things. I would suspect that these unfortunate events have caused the Trustees to excercise heightened diligence. I cannot speak for the other Trustees (none of whom I know at this point) but those who know me would never describe me as one who would, “…sit still and be quiet and let things slide along without asking hard questions.” I look forward to learning more and keeping the churches informed.
Blake,
Me too…
Dave, there are certain statistical parameters to become a convention (we barely met those) and then another set to get board representation (we are nowhere near).
There are only about 100 SBC churches in Iowa. My church runs around 300 on Sunday and we are a mega-church amongst Iowa Baptists. Many are bivocational, with 15-20 people. A church of 65-70 is a large church. We are smaller than most associations in the south.
So, no, we get NO board representation at all.
Our state convention president gets to attend a NAMB meeting once during his tenure. I never was able to work out my schedule to go.
You will probably hear a lot about Iowa. We are a NAMB-dependent state. If you run into Jimmy Barrentine, our state Exec, be nice to him. He’s a great guy.
Dave,
Iowa sounds very similar to Colorado except that we have about 260 churches (400 churches and missions). We also have mountains . Perhaps I can represent Iowa but I will NEVER represent those NAMB Yankees.
NAMB Yankees – that is really funny!
I didn’t realize there are parameters for conventions to get board representation. No wonder Southerners appear to run virtually everything in the convention. That really needs changed. I sympathize with Dave Miller having grown up in IA before moving to MN. The MN-WI Baptist Convention has about 80 churches between the two states and is also an NAMB dependent convention. If you can manage to do anything to make NAMB a little less legalistic when it comes to what kinds of church planters/pastors they’ll support that would be great.
Dave:
I believe that the single biggest andidote to the type of “problems” that have plagued the both the NAMB and the IMB in the past is a TRULY INDEPENDENT Board of Trustees that doesn’t just sit there and rubber-stamp things.
Today at lunch, I was reading the Wall St. Journal regarding GMs emergence from bankrupcy. One of the things that happened there was that the government — the government gets to wield a lot of clout since they literally bailed out GM (they now own it, well 60.8% of it, so I guess they shuld run it) — gets to hand-pick many of the guys on the board and also senior managment. One thing that I thought was good for GM, given these turbulent times, was that the government told a cadre high level GM managers to “expect their phone to ring” because they might get calls directly from someone personally on (or a study group from) the board. The message is: this is a new day in GM and all the formal layers of insulation are gone. Managers are going to be DIRECTLY accountable to the board for what is going on. See WSJ article “GM Set to Exit Bankruptcy” page A1-A14 July 2009 [I read the Central Edition here in Okla -- the story might run on a different page lineup in the West or East]
We need this in SBC life with the agencies. When Chapman fires someone at the EC and we want answers our local BoT guy here in Oklahoma, Doug Melton, should pick up the phone and ask what is going on.
When there is something going on at the NAMB or IMB and we want to know what is going on the BoT member from our state should call top brass at the agency, or any manager anywhere in the chain, and find out what is happening. I found out when I was a manager in Silicon Valley, “there is no such thing as too much information”.
I don’t think the BoT should micromanage. They should never bypass lines of management in issuing directives. But they should go wherever they need to when asking questions and doing investigations.
One small example with the NAMB: There is no way that the “Elevate” conference / music fest / rock concert (whatever it was) could have survived the light of day if anyone from the BoT would have looked at it and started asking questions.
There was so much waste and abuse in the NAMB is was absolutely pathetic. And I mean this in the truest sense of the word — Greek pathos: “suffering” (or loosely ‘sick’)
This is probably for another day, but I think the bylaws or at least the “unwritten customs” of the BoTs of IMB and the NAMB need revision. My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that about 90% of the stuff that has been going on with the BoT is done “in non-smoke filled rooms {cancer free
}” by a few BoT leaders and the rest of the BoT just rubber-stamps things. If that is still true then no wonder we have had “marginal governance” with the mission agencies.
The IMB BoT has 92 members in it. I don’t know what value-added most of them do. I’d like to hear from BoT member number 13, or 35, or 43, or 65, or 84 as to what particular part of the operation was in his/her domain and how he/she drilled down on some part of the operation of the agency to give effective oversight. My question to them, “if you were not there would it have made any difference?” Be honest.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Brother Dave M.,
At least your a good natured whiner! (almost have to be with Boston in the division)
-Chris
There is nothing good-natured about me when the Yankees play the Boston Devil-Sox.
Roger,
Most boards have committees and NAMB is no different. I have been assigned to the Chaplains Commission which is good fit for me. The problem develops if I just stick to my area and don’t make it a practice to understand other areas of NAMB. I don’t know anything about the Elevate conference but I’ve seen examples of waste first-hand as well.
My experience with other boards is that controversial items are usually discussed in executive session. That is necessary for some things but should be used in a limited fashion to keep as much daylight as possible on the issues at hand. At least that is my opinion.
Blake,
Is there a specific issue you have in mind? I know that there are a great many hoops to jump through to get a very limited amount of support. I’m not a church planter and so I haven’t experienced that frustration.
I know of one church planter that is bivocational and will not be given any funding from NAMB because he won’t abstain from alcohol. I expect that policy will not be gotten rid of until a younger generation is fully in charge. However, I’ve heard of another church planter that will not be supported by NAMB because he got divorced before he was a Christian. Divorced Christian I could see as maybe a useful line depending on the circumstances and current spiritual state, but since it was before he was even a Christian that’s legalism at its worst and most unChristian.
Dave:
I’m just a layman and so the whole situation with how the BoTs actually govern and exactly what they do is a mystery to me.
My perception, based upon only the most fragmentary knowledge, is that the members of the BoT are dedicated and committed to the job at hand and they sincerely want to weigh-in and be helpful.
However, from what little I know, I think there needs to be some overhaul regarding the number of people that are in the BoTs and the number of meetings per year. There is a confusion between quantity and quality.
Also, due to the advent of modern communication, it seems to me like a given comittee in the BoTs could do a lot of work remotely. For example, say the BoT wants to drill down on how efficient a particular “ministry” is. Then they could setup a conference call with a dozen key managers in the agency and discuss it. They don’t have to fly in from all over the country to have a physical meeting.
It could be that such stuff is going on NOW as a result of new initiatives that the BoTs are doing. I honestly don’t know.
However, given the “recent” (well they were several years ago) problems at the NAMB it couldn’t have been the case that the BoT knew too much because when the Christian Index article came out the BoT had to appoint investigative committees to look into all the allegations that the Index printed. I think any fair reading of the 19 page BoT report (that the BoT came up with after the allegations)
would be that the BoT was more or less “blindsided” by what the Index printed, so therefore the BoT didn’t really know what was going on. This kind of “detached” BoT oversight is obviously obsolete.
Dave, I’m one person who is very very interested into how effective the BoT actually is in terms of being in a position of knowledge at any given time to actually make a difference in providing effective oversight. To be blunt, my question in this, “How can the leadership of the BoT provide any degree of assurance that even now as I’m typing this, there isn’t another ‘Christian Index’ article waiting in the wings next month or next year?”
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Dave:
Do a Google search and find the article written by the Christian Index, the “response” by Dr. Reccord that he wrote within a week or so after the article broke, and most importantly, the 19 page document created by the NAMB BoT as a result of a study by the trustees.
This is “water under the bridge”. However, it is a classic case study of what happens when senior management is out there freelancing without any effective oversight.
The Google search terms that will get you there are:
NAMB Christian Index
All the links to critical documents will be on the first page of the stuff that Google returns to you as a result of the search.
Dave,
Congratutalions on your selection to work on NAMB. I believe that one of the greatest things NAMB can do is to have Trustees from newer, out of Bible Belt, areas.
I served as a church planter in Wyoming (BTW – Although small/new Convention we did have representation). Our new work was started with a NAMB grant for pastoral funding. I then received Church Growth Assistance funds. These were given by NAMB to WSBC and then dispersed through the State Director of Missions/Evangelism Office.
I do know that the requirements to receive funding are tight (some say legalistic) but I believe that NAMB policies have tried to follow the will of the convention as expressed through Resolutions, BFM, etc. I think most of what I saw firsthand was good. I ampresently in Montana. South Hills Baptist Fellowship is self supporting, but 12 years ago was a NAMB supported work. Just in the Helena area are new church starts receiving NAMB funding – I am encouraged.
Dave,
Welcome! I enjoy your blog and especially the dialogue. If I can be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Tom Wigginton
Team Leader
Information Services
North American Mission Board, SBC
Tom,
Thank you so much! I look forward to meeting you. Perhaps we can meet when I attend the orientation next month.
Steve,
I also have experience in Montana and Wyoming. Until recently my father was attending a church in Helena. I spent much of my growing-up years in Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming.
Sounds like God is doing some great things through your leadership.
Roger,
I have printed out all of the documents that you referenced and will read through them. I am certainly aware of the story but I have never read the things that you have referenced first hand. Thanks.
Blake,
I agree with what Steve Young said in comment #23, “I do know that the requirements to receive funding are tight (some say legalistic) but I believe that NAMB policies have tried to follow the will of the convention as expressed through Resolutions, BFM, etc.” I appreciate the struggle of some to receive funding outside of those guidelines and yet I also realize that there are a great many churches who are willing to self-fund church plants without any denominational assistance whatsoever. I can only speak for my church and affirm that we will support our members (fully if necessary) when they are being led into ministry enterprises. In fact, when it comes to church planting, I’m fairly confident that we would prefer to self-fund in order to avoid the red-tape.
The point of the Cooperative program is that churches cooperate to provide the funding so the burden is so large for the local church. When a church plant has no other means but being funded by other churches outside of the cooperative program then those churches are not being able to spend money on whatever ministries God has given them priority to do. I’m not against churches funding church plants directly. I think that can be a great spiritual practice for the church. However, these legalistic rules are hindering the spread of the Gospel. Not only is money not going as far and wide but the local church budgets become strained to make the difference. If the cooperative program is able to give more then the local church can give less and give more to the priorities God gives which may or may not include these church plants.
Sorry, meant to say: “The point of the Cooperative program is that churches cooperate to provide the funding so the burden is *NOT* so large for the local church.”
Blake,
I hear you. I would like to see as many CP dollars as possible making their way to the mission field. Those dollars are limited meaning that even if you get them–they are not going to be enough to fully fund a church-plant. Relaxing the rules would provide more qualified church-planters but unless more dollars are given there would be fewer dollars available for each plant.
Dave:
I admit those documents are now dated, but they do serve as a good “wakeup call” of the type of things that can happen.
Thanks for being willing to serve! BTW, where is the next BoT meeting of the NAMB? If it is within 300 miles from me I might show up.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Roger,
October 5-7, 2009: Denver, Colorado
February 16-17, 2010: Alpharetta, Georgia
May 17-19, 2010: Shawnee Mission, Kansas
October 18-20, 2010: Los Angeles, California
I’m thinking that I will not see you in Denver…
Dave:
Please send me an email. I’d like be able to communicate a little “offline”.
It is too soon right now to say for sure, but I might attend the BoT meeting in Denver.
My e-mail is
rksimpson1@cox.net
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK