Editorial: With IMB and NAMB, is the urge to merge really valid?

Posted

Dr. Gerald HarrisSouthern Baptists have always had a passion to reach the nation and the nations with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Two mission boards, one for missions in North America (NAMB) and one for missions abroad (IMB), have been commissioned with the task of evangelizing the world for Christ.

Through the years the churches of the SBC have sent thousands of their members to serve Christ through the IMB and NAMB and billions of dollars have also been given by Southern Baptists through the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong missions offerings.

In 1995 Southern Baptists adopted the Covenant for a New Century. This Covenant called for the elimination of several agencies of the Convention and the reassignment of many ministries to other agencies. Five agencies – the Stewardship Commission, Education Commission, Southern Baptist Foundation, Southern Baptist Commission on the American Baptist Seminary, and Historical Commission – were to be completely dissolved with certain aspects of their ministries assigned to existing SBC agencies.

The Radio and Television Commission, Brotherhood Commission, and Home Mission Board were to be merged into a new agency called the North American Mission Board with their ministries reshaped into a coordinated and unified approach to evangelizing North America.

In 2010 the SBC, in its annual session in Orlando, heard a report from the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. The GCRTF recommended a redirection in the ministry assignment of the North American Mission Board and the International Mission Board, but stopped just short of recommending a merger.

Perhaps it is worth noting that serious consideration has been given to uniting the two missions agencies for more than 100 years.

Neither the Covenant for a New Century nor the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force recommended a merging of the two missions agencies, but one has to wonder if a merger of the two entities is not on the drawing board. After all, the two agencies are constructing effective partnerships that suggest the possibility of the fusion of the two mission boards.

As early as May of 2011 Baptist Press published an article entitled, “IMB, NAMB to cross ‘artificial boundaries’ in reaching cities.” The article explained, “While the two mission boards have different ministry assignments and responsibilities, ‘we’re making a determined effort to forge a new and stronger relationship,’ then IMB President Tom Elliff stated.

In February NAMB requested permission from the SBC Executive Committee to plant churches outside the United States. The amendment to NAMB’s ministry statement was approved by the agency’s trustees in February of 2014 and would allow the Alpharetta-based entity to “provide specialized, defined, and agreed upon assistance to the IMB in planting churches for specific groups outside the U.S. and Canada.

This was primarily seen as a logical extension of NAMB’s chaplaincy work among enlisted military personnel. Since local residents could not always attend a worship service on a military base due to security concerns, it was seen as a way of extending the witness of chaplains and military personnel into the community among individuals they encountered on a daily basis. This policy change was due to the fact that NAMB, and not the IMB, was responsible for chaplaincy ministry.

Taking that international flavor a step further, NAMB President Kevin Ezell later said in a Baptist Press article that he wants to urge North American church planters to adopt unreached people groups overseas with NAMB funds provided for each “planter and a member of his church to make a trip overseas to visit that people group.”

IMB President David Platt responded by saying, “The leadership of IMB gladly affirms and supports this recommendation, as a step toward further cooperation between the two entities, for the sake of the spread of the gospel throughout the world.”

This amendment to allow NAMB to extend its church planting near military bases overseas is to be considered at the annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio, June 16-17.

And then there is the partnership between the two agencies at NAMB’s Send North America Conference at the August 3-4 gathering in Nashville, TN. Registration is now approaching 11,000 – easily surpassing more than have attended SBC annual convention meetings in recent years. NAMB President Kevin Ezell remarked, “Churches and individuals will truly be able to come away with a complete vision and plan for their church’s mission activities in North America and around the globe.”

The SBC website states, “IMB hosts equipping conferences and training events during the year throughout North America to equip local churches to make disciples. ... [F]urthermore, IMB assists churches, associations, and state conventions in collaboration with the North American Mission Board to evangelize unreached and underserved diaspora people groups within North America.”

Additionally, Baptist Press has announced, “This year’s Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting will feature a ‘Sending Celebration’ as the Convention’s two mission agencies host a joint commissioning service.”

Perhaps it is worth noting that serious consideration has been given to uniting the two missions agencies for more than 100 years. In H. Leon McBeth’s book The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, we discover that in 1913 John E. White of Georgia called for a study to discover the means “for securing the highest efficiency of our forces.”

As a result of White’s urging, the Committee of Efficiency was established and presented their report in 1914. McBeth asserts, “It (the Committee) resisted heavy pressure to merge the two mission boards into one, recommending instead that the general boards retain their separate identities and locations.”

More than five years ago the Florida Baptist Witness reported that Tim Patterson, then chairman of the NAMB board of trustees, called for such a merger saying it was time for a “singular world mission agency.”

The Witness also reported on February 3, 2010: “After ‘great, great, great discussion’ studying a possible merger of Southern Baptists’ two mission boards, the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has concluded it will not recommend a merger, Chairman Ronnie Floyd said.”

The IMB and NAMB are the flagship Christian missionary agencies in our world today. As these strategic agencies collaborate more and more and partner in more and more assignments it is beginning to appear that a merger may be on the horizon. But is a merger the best thing for these two celebrated missions entities? Is this an idea whose time is come?

...the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force has concluded it will not recommend a merger, Chairman Ronnie Floyd said.

I do not believe a merger is in order for several reasons. First of all, if the two agencies were to merge it is doubtless that the international missions enterprise would trump the North American mission initiatives. The Bible says, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:21). The reality that the Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions is always larger than the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions seems to indicate that people are more passionate about IMB than NAMB.

However, the salvation of America is essential to the salvation of the world. If we give missions in America a second-class status to missions around the world America will continue to decline until the glory of God will depart our nation. When that happens we will not be able to send missionaries around the world or fund Christian missions to the far-flung corners of the Earth. Evangelizing America is critical to the evangelization of the rest of the world. For example, there was a time when Great Britain was a mighty force for Christian missions. Now it is a field for Christian missions.

Secondly, It is possible that combining the two missions agencies and presumably the combining of the two offerings would result in less money being given to our worldwide missions enterprise.

Thirdly, the IMB and NAMB have separate leadership teams and boards of trustees. Sometimes conflict between a board’s leadership and trustees has created difficulties or tension on the field. Having two boards reduces the chances of having difficulties across the entire spectrum of Southern Baptist missions. Additionally, a larger single agency would probably have less trustee representation than two separate agencies thus diluting the input from grassroots Southern Baptists in our missionary operations.

Fourthly, a recent Baptist Press article stated that the IMB plans to align missionary requirements with the Baptist Faith and Message. However, IMB President David Platt explained that the in the newly adopted policy 200-1 that “a divorce is not an automatic disqualifier for long-term service with the IMB as it was under the old policy.”

Platt further explained, “The only baptism requirements under the new policy are that a missionary be ‘a baptized member of a Southern Baptist church’ and possesses a conviction of truth as expressed in the current Baptist Faith and Message statement of the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Previously, IMB policy 200-16 stated: “Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.” The policy applied to all missionaries at all levels of service.

Also, the previous IMB policy defined the gift of tongues, or “glossolalia” in Greek, as speaking “a legitimate language” and disqualified from service all missionary candidates who used an unintelligible language in worship or practiced glossolalia in worship without the New Testaments guidelines. Using an “ecstatic utterance as a prayer language” disqualified a candidate from service.

Although Platt said, “I have seen and confronted the dangers of the charismatic movement and the error that has in so many ways undercut the authority of God’s Word,” Policy 200-1 does not mention speaking in tongues or using a private prayer language as a disqualifier for missionary service.

A former IMB missionary remarked, “I do not want to give dollars to an agency that appoints people with ‘charismatic practices.’ And I believe that many others will have the same concern.”

While many Southern Baptists may concede that extenuating circumstances may warrant the above mentioned policy changes for the IMB, they may not be prepared to grant the same doctrinal leniency to missions here at home.

Several years ago Morris Chapman, who was then president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, explained, “While one cannot make a strong case for or against tongues speaking using the BF&M as the sole interpretative source, it is common knowledge that the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe the Scriptures do not teach that speaking in ecstatic utterances in public worship continue past the days of the apostles. Thus, Southern Baptists, by and large, do not preach, teach, or publicly practice speaking in tongues. This is an instance where the consensus of Southern Baptists is well known although it is not ‘codified’ in the BF&M.”

However, Platt indicated that prospective missionaries who were prevented from serving under the old policies would find the door now open for them to explore serving with the IMB.

While many Southern Baptists may concede that extenuating circumstances may warrant the above mentioned policy changes for the IMB, they may not be prepared to grant the same doctrinal leniency to missions here at home.

But, then, should we allow overseas what we do not allow at home? Therefore, suggesting a merger of the two agencies at this point is untenable, so the idea of combining the two mission boards may be an idea whose time has not yet come.

CP, Great Commission, IMB, missions, NAMB