Time to Reflect on What Might Be: GCRTF Response

I have to say up front that as a fairly new DoM I probably ought to sit on the sidelines and simply embrace the wisdom of others with more experience in denominational life. Yet as I read the GCRTF report and then the comments on this site I am struck by the lack of attention to what this new arrangement in the Baptist mission landscape might accomplish if properly implemented. With that in mind I would like to offer two defenses and two suggestions on how we as DoMs might positively impact the future.

First, the dismantling of State cooperative agreements seems to me to be a necessary decluttering of the way we work in Baptist life. Right now NAMB’s sense of local needs is filtered through State Convention staff who are often themselves too distant from local contexts to respond appropriately on the field. Having NAMB work directly with field missionaries living and working in their areas of operation will force NAMB to at least see that the needs of mission personnel living and working in San Francisco are different from the needs of mission personnel living and working Miami. The current system shields NAMB from this reality through complex supervision and pay schemes that allows them to ignore what in the military we called “the reality on the ground.” Having senior level NAMB officials deal with daily supervisory questions and issues has the potential of creating awareness of local needs and a culture that may more readily affirm the need for local strategies.

Secondly, I find it ironic that an organization tasked by Southern Baptists to reach North America with the Gospel would need to be given permission by the GCRTF to do just that. The recommendations affirming NAMB leadership in reaching North America with the Gospel only illustrate how saddled with denominational politics NAMB is. In the same way that DoMs in local associations are charged with keeping an eye on the big picture within their associational areas (we work where our churches are not) NAMB has a responsibility to do that nationally. It is wrong of the convention to expect its mission boards to work for the Gospel of Christ and then place territorial limitations on where and how they work. The GCRTF recommendations seem to aim at allowing NAMB to actually do the job the convention has called it to do.

Now for the two suggestions. First, I believe we really need to embrace the Spirit of the recommendations and as associational leaders begin to envision the possibilities that direct communication with NAMB offers to local mission fields. Let’s begin now to champion localized mission strategies and be prepared as NAMB transitions to provide viable plans that our mission boards can implement at the local level. We need to do more than spout rhetoric about NAMBs inability to understand us and our needs. We need to fully engage as dialogue partners and come to the table over the next four years with actual plans and justifications for those plans.

Second, those of us in New Convention areas and hard to reach Metropolitan areas need to stop acting like “poor step cousins” and take control of God’s plan for us where we are. It isn’t up to NAMB to reach San Francisco for Christ, although they are welcome partners, that is the responsibility of the local body of Christ in San Francisco. If there is little talk of the association in the report I suspect it is because for too long the association has simply been the errand boy of other denominational entities. A reenvisioned SBC may well shift funds and personnel away from associational work but it may also free us from dependence on those outside our local areas and cause us to take ownership of our own calling and responsibility. It is too easy to simply become consumed by the uncertainties. Perhaps this is God’s way of getting us out of our comfort zones and putting the local community of Christ back to work reaching their neighbors with the Gospel.

I do apologize if these statements seem naive and I am the first to recognize I have a lot to learn about this new role God has placed me in. What I am convinced of is that at the end of the day if I looked around and there was no North American Mission Board or SBC my calling and my work would not have changed. I would still be busy about the work of my Father; reaching those in San Francisco who do not know the love of Jesus Christ.

Joe Caldwell, Executive Director of Missions
San Francisco Peninsula Baptist Association