NAMB moving forward – clarification

In response to my last post “Charting a GCR future for NAMB” I received a strong amount of affirmation. It appears that the message in the post resonates with people from across the country. It was encouraging to hear from so many who affirmed the idea of giving NAMB the freedom to chart a more effective future. However, there were a few individuals who contacted me and expressed some level of disagreement with the post as well. I want to take a short moment to address what appears to be the primary objection.

The primary objective I heard from a few folks from across the country was a frustration because the numbers that NAMB reports concerning its missionary total include both paid and unpaid, volunteer missionaries. The sentiment these individuals expressed was those who are unpaid should be viewed differently than those who are funded and deployed by NAMB.

In my opinion, whether they are paid or volunteer really has nothing to do with the point of the post, or most especially for the need of a GCR. Whether these missionaries are paid and deployed by NAMB and the state convention(s), or whether they are unpaid volunteers, serving the kingdom in these locations, I think it is fair to expect that they are deployed in alignment with an intentional strategy under the guidance of a particular missiological NAMB vision and accountable to NAMB for their effectiveness. Either all NAMB missionaries (paid or volunteer) are deployed in accordance with an integrated and contextualized strategy for reaching North America with the gospel (which means that there is no difference between paid and/or unpaid) or NAMB is back to the original problem of developing and implementing an effective national strategy that unifies the whole toward a gospel-saturated vision of reaching the lost regardless of their presence on NAMB’s payroll. In either case problems still remain.

Micah is a husband to Tracy & a daddy to Grace, Kessed & Haddon. He’s Senior Pastor at Brainerd Baptist Church in Chattanooga, TN. Most of all, he’s a debtor to grace.

2 thoughts on “NAMB moving forward – clarification

  1. Micah, Thanks for the thoughts . A little Clarity as one who has worked with NAMB. The NAMB does not use the term “volunteers” for those who are self-funded. They serve as Mission Service Corp Missionaries. They have to meet the same qualifications as those who serve as fully funded and are approved by the Trustees. Before a MSC missionary can serve on the field, the position must be in alignment with the strategy of the local field, State Convention and the NAMB. They meet your expectations of being in “alignment with an intentional strategy under the guidance of a particular missiological NAMB vision and accountable to NAMB for their effectiveness.” I would encouarge you to contact the MSC Director at NAMB for a greater understanding of the impact MSC missionaries make on reaching North America for Christ.

  2. Charles, thank you for the clarification. In that case, however, I find it interesting that so many in my previous post were adamant that unpaid NAMB missionaries and paid NAMB missionaries should be viewed differently. Your explanation seems to validate my previous post.

Leave a Reply