For part 1 of the series, click here.

We have already dealt with some of the reasons that I believe that we need drastic overhauls of our state convention paradigm. In fact, as you will see, I am going to also include what I believe are needed changes to other aspects of SBC life that directly influence the state convention process as well. So, without any further ado, here we go.

The re-organization of SBC missions

I think we have to begin with a consolidation and refocusing of our missions efforts. The first change I would make would be to fold NAMB into the IMB and make NAMB another region of the IMB equivalent to Western Europe, East Asia, North African & Middle East, etc. There was a time when North American missions and Global missions were entirely different in scope, methodology needed, etc. That is simply not true today. As a general rule, in areas where North America is unreached, IMB philosophy can and will be just as effective as it is overseas. There is no need for two large organizations to accomplish what one streamlined organization could accomplish. Additionally I am of the opinion that NAMB should cease all operations in “reached” areas. In other words, in areas where there is significant SBC presence NAMB does not need to be present. That would mean that NAMB resources will no longer be distributed to areas like Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, etc. The SBC churches in those areas are sufficient to reach them. I am convinced that part of the reason that our churches don’t do a better job of reaching these areas is that we don’t have to. We’ll gladly put it off on someone else if it means we don’t have to spend our money, time and energy to do so. Again, let me emphasize that this does not negate lostness in these “reached” areas, but it simply recognizes the need for the churches in that given area to take personal responsibility for their home regions. This would then allow our missions resources to be reallocated to areas where there is significant need and where there are no local SBC churches to meet that need. By reorganizing NAMB and then reducing their presence in “reached” states, that would eliminate the need for state conventions to have a staff for funneling NAMB money and resources through the state convention other than in pioneer states where we would now have IMB missionaries who would report back to the IMB who would be on site and responsible for distribution and deployment of the missions resources.

The second step, then, would be the significant reduction of the state conventions. I am not advocating for the state convention to disappear. I am advocating, however, that the state convention begins to look more like a small framework that enables local churches rather than a large organization that does ministry and invites local churches to join them. I would advocate for the state convention staff to be divided into two components.

Component #1 – Church Planting

The first would be a church planting department. Essentially their responsibility would be to do statistical research to understand where the areas of need in the state are, and then provide encouragement/mentoring for church planters. The screening process for the church planters, as well as the funding for the church planters, could be funneled through the local associations who both know the area and who would assume the responsibility for negotiating with local churches for the support needed. They, being a local component, would also be responsible for accountability and oversight. In that they are local it would be difficult for the church planter to hide and to be ineffective without drawing the attention of the local pastors and or association. The local church planter could work with a team of mentors from local churches who have experience in the local area and who understand the demands of ministry specific to their locale. This would also eliminate the need for the national organizations to become theological clearinghouses to oversee and even restrict candidates that would be approved and/or acceptable by the local churches. This would move us back to a loosely organized group of local churches partnering together for missions rather than a behemoth denomination who is not maximizing their resources and run by the local level.

Component #2 – Church Partnership

The second component of the reorganized state convention would be the establishment of a church partnership team. This team would be responsible for understanding the state and helping facilitate partnerships for tasks that are bigger than what one or two churches can accomplish. This group would work to canvas the state and make available opportunities to churches. In many ways, however, they would be different from where are currently at. Rather than provide the opportunities they would simply accumulate and relay information.

A natural result of these two components of the state convention would be the deployment of state convention employees across the state. They would live in various locales and simply meet via video/web conferences, email and phone. Florida has been doing something like this for some time and it has worked well. This would also eliminate the need for a large organization in one large city (Jefferson City in Missouri’s case) and make the state convention locally available to everyone in the state.

In conclusion

I realize that this proposal is fairly short and needs a bit more flesh on it. I’m sure that in the comments some will point out areas that I’ve missed…and that’s good. What I hope to see is these areas dealt with to the place where we can present a viable option that we could advocate for. I’m looking forward to hearing from you!