Doug's Thoughts on the SBC GCRTF Part 3

While there have been comments recently downplaying whether anyone cares what bloggers think, I'm going to chime in with my own opinion about one of the current issues we're facing in Southern Baptist life. Now, this is a long thought, so it's going to be spread across 5 blog posts. There's a “Contact” link at the top of the blog. Email me if you want the whole thing in one document.  Or click here for a PDF (I hope!)
Doug
V.  Is there anything that can be recommended? Are there other possibilities? While I am not a mega-church pastor, seminary president, or other great and note-worthy individual, here are some things that I would suggest. I'd be interested to hear anyone else's critiques or additions:

  1. Allow each church to set the amount given to their state convention and to the national level. This eliminates the debate over state percentage division with the national entities. If local churches are the focus point of our obedience and our plan, put this decision directly in their hands. If states see they are receiving more than they need, they can look towards forwarding the excesses to specific entities at the national level as guided by their own processes. This will require agreement by both the SBC Executive Committee and each separate state.

  2. Set a 7-to-10 year plan that for every funded NAMB missionary in an “old-line” ministry area, there are 2 serving in pioneer or ethnic ministry areas that are unserved. This would not apply to those who serve, such as Mission Service Corps volunteers, that are officially missionaries with NAMB but are not full-time funded. A similar equity would be recommended in those areas; however, I would not suggest that NAMB reject volunteers who only want (and qualify to receive) endorsement but are unable to relocate. This will require the action of the NAMB. As the Cooperative Agreements begin to be impacted by this, it may require involvement of affected states.

  3. Decrease funding for the ERLC and place it under the authority of NAMB as a missions point. ERLC political lobbying functions are duplicated by a variety of Christian organizations and serve more as a distraction from the task. Also, one could wonder if our maintaining a “membership” number that is 10 million more than our attendance reflects building a political platform. This will require an action of the SBC to merge the entities.

  4. Require all hiring for executive positions from Vice-President up in SBC Boards and agencies to be ratified by a vote of the entire SBC at the annual meeting. Boards could place an individual in the role as an “interim” but the body of messengers would have to confirm the decision. This will require action by all Boards.

  5. Peg the compensation of all executives for any entity receiving CP funds to the pay scale of IMB/NAMB missionaries. Vice-Presidents would be pegged to 1.5x the salary and Presidents 2.5x the salary of IMB/NAMB Missionaries. Use a publicized average salary level to derive this number. This would also apply to administrative/executive positions at seminaries receiving CP funds. Benefits and cost of living/locality pay should match what missionaries receive. (As a side note: I think the salary information would be pertinent to each church as they determine compensation for ministry staff.) This will require action by all Boards.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

Curiosity and the Faithlife Study Bible

Foolishness: 1 Corinthians 1