That statement makes me want to throw up.
Mostly because I know it’s true. Not true of any of the present company, or course, but of many others out there.

I don’t know if I’m sadder for the pastors who, although they pastor “Christian” churches, apparently have no concept of the Kingdom of God or for the rest of us who have to pretend that they do.
Actually, I do know. … much sadder for the pastors. In their striving to make their own kingdoms bigger, they’ve missed the whole point.

I can’t honestly say I’m that far “above” said pastors. I think it’s WAY too easy for me to confuse power over man with anointing from God, manipulation with leadership, man’s favor with God’s favor…I could go on and on.

I think we need to keep in mind:

1. God is REALLY, REALLY BIG
2. We are really, really not.
3. Despite our confusion of these two points, He LOVES us tenaciously
4. but He also wants us to be in tune with HIS HEART
5. HIS HEART is not beating to feed our egos or our sense of power/fulfillment/significance…

I agree with everything you said so I am not sure where we have a difference of opinion.

I am like Strider though, in that I have seen plenty of instances inside and outside the IMB where missionaries and churches have not been on the same page. It would seem strange to me to have missionaries who have spent years learning the language, building relationships, have experience in cross cultural church planting and expect them to sit and wait until their home church or pastor in the US told them what they could or could not do. I guarantee you Bertha Smith would not wait. I do not see the Biblical basis for what you are saying. Paul did not wait to hear from the Jerusalem church when the Macedonian call came. He was following the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

I am wondering is this teaching coming from one of our seminaries or from where? It a litte like the old Gospel Mission movement in China back in the 1800s.

My point is that even if a pastor wants to “carry the ball” himself or “write the playbook” there are ways to do that with and through the IMB.

Now, OF COURSE there are m’s who want to write the strategy. And they may even get a little bit testy when someone comes over and tells them how they should do it differently, or why some method we tried in the States would be better. They live there. They know the culture. They’ve learned the worldview. They’ve observed the bridges and barriers. It would be a no brainer to want to tie into that. But if a church can’t or won’t, they still have options of adopting their own people and making their own strategy, yet still partnering with the IMB.

My short(ha) comment writings do not adequately express or convey in a way that would help you or others to fully understand what I am addressing.

I think your professor is correct in his statement. “Truth is always found in the middle.”

I would say that your comment to Stuart about pastors could also be said about M’s or M organizations also.

* Some pastors won’t participate if they’re not carrying the ball themselves, or at the very least drawing up the playbook.

This is what I am concerned about.

An immediate case in point is a co-worker of mine who is with another agency. The agency wants him here in Gondor in a new town. He feels called to this town. He has been faithfully working for two years here and is beginning to see some fruit. This summer his sending church pulled the plug and decided- without any consultation from the M- to ‘change their strategy’ and pull him back home. He had to leave that church and find other supporters in order to continue to do what God is calling him to. That is the scenario that I hear you purporting. I am sure you don’t think you are, but that is what I see as the outcome of the paradim you are suggesting.

Let’s keep talking. I seem to be hearing my history professor Doyle Young calling out from the back of my mind, “Truth is always found in the middle.”

Now, in the 165 years or so since:
* Other organizations have come along who also carry the ball.
* Because of technology and cheap (by historical standards) travel, churches are able to carry the ball by themselves in ways they couldn’t before.
* Some pastors won’t participate if they’re not carrying the ball themselves, or at the very least drawing up the playbook.

Churches invest in what they value.
Could more be done to help churches get to know IMB personnel and get churches involved in IMB work? Yes. Are there ample existing opportunities to get to know IMB personnel and be involved in IMB work? Yes, also.

It takes one phone call to Richmond to get connecting with a furloughing missionary. It takes a little more effort to find the right place to plug into a field strategy, but it’s not “that” hard. It’s easy to “blame” any disconnect on the size, age, or structure of the IMB. But it’s time to admit that we sometimes don’t get to know our own personnel or get involved in their work because we simply want to carry the ball in a different way, or according to our own playbook.

Sorry if I extended the metaphor out a bit too far.

Thank you for your service. No harm meant..just ideas, dreams, visions and desires for a new way in a new day.

Ron…you and I have a difference of opinion. I am fine with that if you are. I do believe the sending church should be involved. I do not think it should be controlled by the sending church, but the sending church does have influence with the missionary they send out. They should have influence in vision, strategy, direction and accountability with the M, apostle, sent out one. Just as the apostles in Jerusalem has influence with Paul and the church in Antioch also presumably did also by the reports he would send back to the churches.

We possibly could be saying the same thing and I be missing it though.

I am a fan of the IMB. My concern and disagreement with some things does not negate my love and appreciation for the 165 years of experience they have in leading out in International Mission. Again, I think the IMB picked up the “ball” when the church “dropped” it and they have run diligently for many years.

As you say, now that there are some churches who are desiring to lead, strategize, cast the vision, plant and have accountability with M’s we need to utilize the best of what they IMB does.

In my opinion, just as seminaries do not plant churches, they train pastors who will go, plant and lead churches under the direction of other churches until they are able to stand on their own. (Someone’s criteria, you decide what that should be.) The IMB should train missiologist and mission leaders who the church decides to send. The IMB has the research, training, and many of the logistics pieces down to a science, why not utilize that to it’s fullest potential. The church has the pool of people, the leadership in many instances, creativity in methods, and other things that the IMB could utilize also. This two(church/IMB) could/can partner together for the cause of planting. The IMB in teh support role and the church leading in personnel, strategy, casting the vision, planting and accountability with M’s.

I am thankful for your 30 years of service in the field God has called you to and I celebrate all that God has done through you. I am not trying to invalidate your service or the organization. I am looking, praying and visioning for the new method or way the church and the IMB can partner together.

So, there are problems to address. If the IMB has put any roadblock in front of any church to stop them from partnering with those on the field then that roadblock must come down. The churches are in partnership and as this world continues to shrink there will be more and more opportunities to do exactly what Kyle suggest. Step one, eliminate the us and them attitude that has crept into both sides.