GCRTF Raises Concerns

I am of course concerned with how it would all work out if the recommendations by the GCR Task Force are adopted. I wonder if there would be any savings if NAMB were to decentralize – would there be seven offices with staff instead of one central office, and would that save money, or cost more money? If the Cooperative Agreements are ended with the state conventions, would that result in more CP money, or would the state conventions only retain what they need to operate and send less CP money on to Nashville resulting in no change to the CP budget, and perhaps even a decrease, especially if the state conventions have to fully fund their staff and take responsibility for stewardship/CP promotion. Here in the northern states, how would the associations and churches respond if their ADoMs are no longer funded by NAMB? Would they choose to send more to their associations in order to retain their ADoMs, and thus send less for CP? Or would the ADoMs be direct NAMB missionaries and no longer able to do ADoM work, thus leaving the associations without ADoMs? Then what? I just have a lot of questions that are unanswered at this point. I’m not sure the recommendations as reported will actually result in an increase for international missions. I’m afraid that it will just result in many changes that will not necessarily accomplish what the GCR Task Force desires to see accomplished, and may even result in less money available for international missions. Too little information and too much uncertainty as to how it will all work out when the dust settles.

In Christ,

Jim Marcus, Associational Director of Missions
Genesee Baptist Association
Flint, MI